Alcohol brand use of youth-appealing advertising and consumption by youth and adults

Background: Youth exposure to alcohol marketing has been shown to be an important contributor to the problem of underage drinking in the U.S. More work is needed on identifying and minimizing content with particular appeal to youth. Design and Methods: We tested the association between the youth-appeal of marketing content of televised alcohol advertisements and the brand-specific alcohol consumption of both underage youth and adults. We used existing data from three sources: a brand-specific alcohol consumption survey among underage youth (N=1032), a brand-specific alcohol consumption survey among adults (N ~13,000), and an analysis of content appealing to youth (CAY) in a sample of televised alcohol advertisements (n=96) aired during the youth survey. The association between CAY scores for the 96 alcohol ads and youth (age 13-20) versus adult (age 21+) consumption of those ads’ brands was tested through bivariate and multivariate models. Results: Brand CAY scores were (a) positively associated with brand-specific youth consumption after controlling for adult brand consumption; (b) positively associated with a ratio of youth-toadult brand-specific consumption; and (c) not associated with adult brand consumption. Conclusions: Alcohol brands with youth-appealing advertising are consumed more often by youth than adults, indicating that these ads may be more persuasive to relatively younger audiences, and that youth are not simply mirroring adult consumption patterns in their choice of brands. Future research should consider the content of alcohol advertising when testing marketing effects on youth drinking, and surveillance efforts might focus on brands popular among youth

Assessment of incorporation of lessons from tobacco control in city and county laws regulating legal marijuana in California.

Importance: As marijuana continues to be legalized in many states, little is known about best regulatory practice, exposing the population to significant potential harm. Objective: To assess the extent to which potential best practices, including those from tobacco control, were incorporated into state and local marijuana policies in California. Design and Setting: California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and adult recreational use in 2016, effective in January 2018. A cross-sectional study with data collection and analysis from February 1 to November 30, 2019, measured the adoption of potential demand reduction and youth protection best practices, including restrictions on sales, products, marketing, warnings, and taxation. Laws in effect by January 31, 2019, were verified and all 539 California local jurisdictions were studied. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adoption of potential best practices in marijuana laws for demand reduction and youth protection. Results: The laws of 534 of California's 539 jurisdictions (99%) were successfully identified; 263 of these 534 jurisdictions (49%) allowed any retail sale of marijuana, covering 57% of the state's population. More than one-third of jurisdictions allow sales of marijuana for adult recreational use (203 of 534 [38%]); of those, 122 allow storefront dispensaries and 81 allow sales by delivery only. A total of 257 of 534 jurisdictions (48%) allow medical sales. Of 147 jurisdictions allowing medical or adult use dispensaries, 93 (63%) limited the number of licenses, with a mean of 1 store for every 19 058 residents (range, 154-355 143). The state imposed no limits on number of dispensaries or deliverers. Forty-two jurisdictions increased the state-specified distances required between dispensaries and schools. Only 8 jurisdictions allowing retail sales imposed restrictions on products exceeding state regulations; 1 prohibited sale of flavored products, 3 prohibited sale of marijuana-infused beverages, and 5 imposed additional restrictions on edible marijuana products. No jurisdictions limited potency of products sold, although 1 established a potency-linked tax. The state did not limit or tax potency, except for establishing a standard 10-mg dose of tetrahydrocannabinol for edible marijuana products, nor did they limit manufacturing or sale of flavored products. The state required only a health warning in 6-point font on packages. Twenty-seven jurisdictions required additional health warnings in stores or on packages, 27 allowed onsite consumption of marijuana products, and 13 allowed marijuana-related events. More than half of jurisdictions legalizing any cannabis commerce (154 of 289 [53%]) did not tax marijuana locally and little revenue was captured for prevention. Much of the state excise and cultivation taxes is slated for youth substance use prevention and treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In implementing legalization of marijuana in California, local policies varied widely. Where marijuana was legalized, many lessons from tobacco control to reduce demand, limit harm, and prevent youth use were not adopted, potentially creating greater risk of harm

Assessment of Incorporation of Lessons From Tobacco Control in City and County Laws Regulating Legal Marijuana in California.

ImportanceAs marijuana continues to be legalized in many states, little is known about best regulatory practice, exposing the population to significant potential harm.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which potential best practices, including those from tobacco control, were incorporated into state and local marijuana policies in California.Design and settingCalifornia legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and adult recreational use in 2016, effective in January 2018. A cross-sectional study with data collection and analysis from February 1 to November 30, 2019, measured the adoption of potential demand reduction and youth protection best practices, including restrictions on sales, products, marketing, warnings, and taxation. Laws in effect by January 31, 2019, were verified and all 539 California local jurisdictions were studied.Main outcomes and measuresAdoption of potential best practices in marijuana laws for demand reduction and youth protection.ResultsThe laws of 534 of California's 539 jurisdictions (99%) were successfully identified; 263 of these 534 jurisdictions (49%) allowed any retail sale of marijuana, covering 57% of the state's population. More than one-third of jurisdictions allow sales of marijuana for adult recreational use (203 of 534 [38%]); of those, 122 allow storefront dispensaries and 81 allow sales by delivery only. A total of 257 of 534 jurisdictions (48%) allow medical sales. Of 147 jurisdictions allowing medical or adult use dispensaries, 93 (63%) limited the number of licenses, with a mean of 1 store for every 19 058 residents (range, 154-355 143). The state imposed no limits on number of dispensaries or deliverers. Forty-two jurisdictions increased the state-specified distances required between dispensaries and schools. Only 8 jurisdictions allowing retail sales imposed restrictions on products exceeding state regulations; 1 prohibited sale of flavored products, 3 prohibited sale of marijuana-infused beverages, and 5 imposed additional restrictions on edible marijuana products. No jurisdictions limited potency of products sold, although 1 established a potency-linked tax. The state did not limit or tax potency, except for establishing a standard 10-mg dose of tetrahydrocannabinol for edible marijuana products, nor did they limit manufacturing or sale of flavored products. The state required only a health warning in 6-point font on packages. Twenty-seven jurisdictions required additional health warnings in stores or on packages, 27 allowed onsite consumption of marijuana products, and 13 allowed marijuana-related events. More than half of jurisdictions legalizing any cannabis commerce (154 of 289 [53%]) did not tax marijuana locally and little revenue was captured for prevention. Much of the state excise and cultivation taxes is slated for youth substance use prevention and treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn implementing legalization of marijuana in California, local policies varied widely. Where marijuana was legalized, many lessons from tobacco control to reduce demand, limit harm, and prevent youth use were not adopted, potentially creating greater risk of harm

Tapping Into Motivations for Drinking Among Youth: Normative Beliefs About Alcohol Use Among Underage Drinkers in the United States.

Social norms affect human behavior, and underage drinking is no exception. Using the theory of normative social behavior (TNSB), this paper tested the proposition that the association between perceptions about the prevalence of drinking (descriptive norms) and underage drinking is strengthened when perceived pressures to conform (injunctive norms) and beliefs about the benefits of drinking (outcome expectations) are high. This proposition was tested on a nationally representative sample of underage drinkers, ages 13–20, (N = 1,031) in relation to their alcohol consumption, expanding on research with college-age youth. On average, males and females reported drinking 23 and 18 drinks per month, respectively. The main effect of descriptive norms (β = .10, p < .01) on alcohol consumption was modified by interactions with injunctive norms (β = .11, p < .01), benefit to self (β = .12, p < .001), and benefit to others (β = .10, p < .01). Underage drinkers are most vulnerable to excessive drinking if they believe that most others drink, that they themselves are expected to drink, and that drinking confers several benefits. Norms-based interventions to reduce youth alcohol use need to focus on changing not only descriptive norms, but also injunctive norms and outcome expectations

A statewide study of disparities in local policies and tobacco, vape, and cannabis retail environments

The current study: (1) assesses sociodemographic disparities in local policies related to tobacco and cannabis retail, and (2) examines the cross-sectional association between policy strength and retailer densities of tobacco, e-cigarette (vape), and cannabis retailers within California cities and county unincorporated areas (N = 539). We combined (a) American Community Survey data (2019 5-year estimates), (b) 2018 tobacco, vape, and cannabis retailer locations from a commercial data provider, (c) 2017 tobacco and vape retail environment policy data from American Lung Association, and (d) 2018 cannabis policy data from California Cannabis Local Laws Database. Conditional autoregressive models examined policy strength associations with sociodemographic composition and retailer density in California jurisdictions. Jurisdictions with larger percentages of Black and foreign-born residents had stronger tobacco and vape policies. For cannabis policy, only income had a small, significant positive association with policy strength. Contrary to hypothesis, tobacco/vape policies were not significantly associated with retailer density, but cannabis policy strength was associated with lower cannabis retailer density (relative rate = 0.58, 95% Uncertainty Interval 0.47–0.70)—this effect was completely driven by storefront bans. Thus, storefront cannabis bans were the only policy studied that was associated with lower cannabis retailer density. Further research is needed to understand policies and disparities in retail environments for tobacco, vape, and cannabis, including data on the prospective association between policy implementation and subsequent retailer density, and the role of enforcement