A Response to Newark’s New Tobacco Retail License Ordinance
On Oct. 24, 2024, Newark City Council passed a tobacco retail license ordinance to address growing concerns among its residents about the harms of unregulated tobacco exposure near youth-sensitive areas (ex: schools, parks, etc.). While this was a highly anticipated and arduous achievement, a few provisions requested by community members in collaboration with the Alameda County Department of Public Health were left out.2 These include capping the number of tobacco retail licenses issued by the city, enforcing the prohibition on the sale of tobacco products within 1,000-ft (approximately two blocks) of youth-sensitive areas, and prohibiting the transfer of tobacco retail licenses from one proprietor to the next. These three provisions share a common theme of regulating tobacco retail density, a strategic and evidence-based approach that has proven effective in other municipalities across the Bay Area.3
Newark’s tobacco retail licensing ordinance must include tighter restrictions on retailer density near youth sensitive areas. According to the 2012 report by the US Surgeon General on Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Adults, “youth living in areas with highest density of retail tobacco outlets are more likely to have smoked cigarettes in the past month than those in areas of lowest density of outlets”.1 Considering the influence of peer pressure in adolescents’ decision-making and identity development, it’s no surprise that they would pick-up smoking when confronted with omnipresent smoke shops. In Newark, there are a total of thirty-five tobacco retail smoke shops and only twelve public schools. According to the 2023 California Youth Tobacco Survey, which surveys high school students every two years as part of a longitudinal research study funded by the California Department of Public Health and the California Department of Education, despite the minimum legal age of 21 years old to purchase tobacco products in California, the most common method of obtaining vapes or cigarettes among high school students was by buying the products themselves, and roughly 60-70% of these self-purchases were done at retail stores.4
Opponents of tobacco retail density regulations may argue that these provisions restrict business operations and could hurt small retailers who rely on tobacco sales for revenue. They may prefer alternatives such as raising the price of tobacco products or enforcing federal laws that prohibit the sale of “loosies” or single cigarettes. While these alternatives are helpful, they do not address the geographic proximity of these products to youth. According to Dr. Golden et. al. in a recent publication funded by the National Cancer Institute examining the supply and demand effects between tobacco retailer density and smoking prevalence, the most effective regulations are ones that “combine retail environment regulations with those that reduce consumer demand”.5 Further, when considering the negative impact of tobacco addiction on social (ex: stigma), environmental (ex: air pollution), and health outcomes (ex: cardiovascular disease) alone, the weight of these consequences at a population level seems far more threatening than retail revenue losses.
In conclusion, amending Newark’s tobacco retail licensing ordinance to include retail density regulations is an important step towards securing a more equitable future for its residents, especially the younger generation that is heavily targeted by the tobacco industry. By limiting the accessibility of tobacco products, Newark can create a safer environment that supports long-term health and well-being for all its residents.
Carmen Javier
Newark
References:
1) CDC. “Scientific Evidence Briefs.” Smoking and Tobacco Use; Tobacco retail Density, Location, and Licensure, April 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/php/data-research/scientific-evidence-briefs/index.html.
2) “Community Preservation (Code Enforcement) | Newark, CA.” Accessed November 8, 2024. https://www.newark.org/departments/community-development/community-preservation.
3) “San Francisco’s Tobacco Retail Density Regulation: An E-cigarette Policy Case Study” | Public Health Law Center.” Accessed November 8, 2024.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/ecigarette-policy-case-san-francisco.pdf
4) Clodfelter, R., Dutra, L. M., Bradfield, B., Russell, S., Levine, B., & von Jaglinsky, A. (2023). Annual
results report for the California Youth Tobacco Survey 2023; Pages 43-54. RTI International.
5) Golden SD, Kuo TM, Combs T, Kong AY, Ribisl KM, Baggett CD. Supply and demand effects between tobacco retailer density and smoking prevalence. Tob Control. 2024 Aug 12:tc-2024-058739. doi: 10.1136/tc-2024-058739. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 39134401.
