Original articleAre Tobacco Control Policies Effective in Reducing Young Adult Smoking?
Section snippets
Methods
NSDUH is a national survey of illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use by the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 years or older that has been conducted since 1971. The 2002–2009 NSDUH employed a state-based design with an independent, multistage area probability sample within each state and the District of Columbia. The design oversampled youths and young adults, so that each state's sample was approximately equally distributed among three age groups: 12 to 17 years, 18 to 25
Results
The trends in our key outcomes (Table 1) show that the prevalence of current and established smoking was lower in 2009 than in 2002 (p < .01), although past year initiation increased (p < .01). Over this same time, the three key tobacco control policy variables increased considerably. The U.S. average percentage of the state population covered by smoke-free air laws more than quadrupled from 15.4% to 71.1%. Inflation-adjusted per capita cumulative funding for state tobacco control programs and
Discussion
From 2002 to 2009, the prevalence of current and established smoking declined by 12% and almost 18%, respectively. However, over this same time, past year initiation increased by 28% (from 6.7% to 8.6%). Given that current smoking rates declined by nearly one third (from 13.0% to 8.9%) among 12- to 17-year-olds during this time period [5], this suggests that smoking initiation may be delayed for some youth, a finding that is consistent with Lantz [1]. From 2002 to 2009, smoke-free air laws
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank David Heller of RTI International for reviewing the statistical analyses.
References (27)
- et al.
Tobacco industry lifestyle magazines targeted to young adults
J Adolesc Health
(2009) Public policy and smoking cessation among young adults in the United States
Health Policy
(2004)- et al.
The impact of tobacco control program expenditures on aggregate cigarette sales: 1981–2000
J Health Econ
(2003) - et al.
Influences of sensation seeking, gender, risk appraisal, and situational motivation on smoking
Addict Behav
(1990) - et al.
Public and private domains of religiosity and adolescent smoking transitions
Soc Sci Med
(2006) Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General
(2012)- et al.
Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults: Evidence from industry documents
Am J Public Health
(2002) - et al.
The prevention of cigarette smoking: Long-term national trends in adolescent and young adult smoking
Am J Public Health
(2008) - et al.
Progression to established smoking among U.S. youths
Am J Public Health
(2004) Results from the 2009 national survey on drug use and health, volume I: Summary of national findings
(2010)
Young adults: Vulnerable new targets of tobacco marketing
Am J Public Health
Smooth moves: Bar and nightclub tobacco promotions that target young adults
Am J Public Health
Bar and club tobacco promotions in the alternative press: Targeting young adults
Am J Public Health
Cited by (25)
Tobacco use disparities by racial/ethnic groups: California compared to the United States
2016, Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :The successes in decreased tobacco use in California is likely due to concerted efforts of early and comprehensive tobacco prevention and control (Messer & Pierce, 2010; Pierce et al., 2010). Other states have also had successes in reducing prevalence of cigarette use and related morbidity and mortality (Farrelly et al., 2013, 2014; Kuiper, Nelson, & Schooley, 2005). It was expected that California would exhibit greater success in tobacco control than the rest of the US, however the differential and strong effects for racial/ethnic minority groups is both striking and an indicator of success in reducing tobacco disparities in California.
Disclaimer: The findings and the conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.