Youth Smoking Prevention Policy Lessons Learned and Continuing Challenges Reducing Underage

Bookshelf

NCBI Book Shelf Service of National Health Research Institute of Health.

Committee on Developed A Strategy To Reduce to reduce and prevent minor drinking. And Prevaint Underage Drinking; Bonnie RJ, O 'CONNNELL ME, editors. Reduce drinking for minors: A Collective Responsibility. Washington (DC): National Academies Pres (US); 2004.

Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility.

US Academic Council (USA) and Medical Research Institute (USA) Underage Drinking / Prevention Strategy Formulation Committee;

Washington (DC): NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS (US); 2004.

Content
Hard copy version of the US Academe Press

< PrevNext >

16 Youth Smoking Prevention Policy: Lessons Learned and Continuing Challenges

Paula M. Rangz

Many studies have revealed that few people in the United States have started smoking or becoming a habitual smoker after teens. Nearly nine out of 10 adult smokers are now starting to use cigarettes before or before that (Giovino, 1999). Considering the epidemiology of smoking, many policies and programs have been pointed out to prevent young people (IOM], 1994; Jacobson et al.) There are such strong policy interests. Nevertheless, the use of cigarettes in the United States has actually increased through the majority of the 1990s and has decreased slightly in recent years. With a wide variety of intervention measures and policies that have been implemented, and many research on effects have been conducted, many things have been described in the current situation of the youth cigarette regulation policy and its victory and hardships. NCBI Book Shelf Service of National Medical Library.

RECENT TRENDS IN SMOKING AMONG YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS

US Academic Council (USA) and Medical Research Institute (USA) Underage Drinking / Prevention Strategy Formulation Committee;

FIGURE 16-1

Washington (DC): NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS (US); 2004.

Content

Hard copy version of the US Academe Press

Paula M. Rangz

MAJOR YOUTH TOBACCO CONTROL STRATEGIES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

School-Based Educational Interventions

Many studies have revealed that few people in the United States have started smoking or becoming a habitual smoker after teens. Nearly nine out of 10 adult smokers are now starting to use cigarettes before or before that (Giovino, 1999). Considering the epidemiology of smoking, many policies and programs have been pointed out to prevent young people (IOM], 1994; Jacobson et al.) There are such strong policy interests. Nevertheless, the use of cigarettes in the United States has actually increased through the majority of the 1990s and has decreased slightly in recent years. With a wide variety of intervention measures and policies that have been implemented, and many research on effects have been conducted, many things have been described in the current situation of the youth cigarette regulation policy and its victory and hardships. NCBI Book Shelf Service of National Health Research Institute of Health.

US Academic Council (USA) and Medical Research Institute (USA) Underage Drinking / Prevention Strategy Formulation Committee;

Regulation, Restrictions, and Penalties Regarding Youth Access to Tobacco

Washington (DC): NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS (US); 2004.

Content

Hard copy version of the US Academe Press

Paula M. Rangz

Penalties for Youth Possession, Use, and Purchase

Many studies have revealed that few people in the United States have started smoking or becoming a habitual smoker after teens. Nearly nine out of 10 adult smokers are now starting to use cigarettes before or before that (Giovino, 1999). Considering the epidemiology of smoking, many policies and programs have been pointed out to prevent young people (IOM], 1994; Jacobson et al.) There are such strong policy interests. Nevertheless, the use of cigarettes in the United States has actually increased through the majority of the 1990s and has decreased slightly in recent years. With a wide variety of intervention measures and policies that have been implemented, and many research on effects have been conducted, many things have been described in the current state of the current state of the youth cigarette regulation policy and its victory and hardships.

In this chapter, efforts to reduce alcohol intake of minors (that is, intervention based on school; restrictions on purchasing, possessing, and use of youth; advertising regulation; mass media competition marketing campaign; intervening in local communities; comprehensive. Focusing on policies and intervention strategies similar to a tobacco regulation program), we present a rapid integration of literature on efforts to prevent or reduce youth smoking. It shows a simple summary of strategies and evaluation documents that aim to regulate youth smoking. These summarys are the most recently announced reviews (Lantz, 2000; Jacobson, 2001), and the recently held "Innovation Conference on Innovation Countermeasures for Youth Cigarette Countermeasures" held in Santafe, New Mexico in July 2002. Sponsored by the Michigan University tobacco Research Network, Robert Wood Wood Johnson Foundation, Ted Klein Youth Heading Project). At the end of this chapter, we will consider the important lessons learned from the initiatives of youth tobacco regulations, which may be related to youth alcohol policy.

The tendency of smoking in puberty is usually defined as smoking experience (also called "smoking" and defined to have tried tobacco), the current smoking (smoked in the past 30 days. ) It is monitored about daily smoking. According to the current tendency data on smokers, youth smoking increased from the 1960s to the 1970s. In the late 1970s, the smoking rate slowly, but began to decline steadily, and rose again in the late 1980s, and most of the last 10 years continued to rise (Jacobson et al.) From 1975 to 2001. According to the data of the third grade of high school (see Fig. 16-1), the current smoking rate has risen from 19. 4 % in 1990, peaking at 24. 5 % in 1997, and has since dropped slightly (monitoring). THE FUTURE, 2002; Johnston et al.) All social population statistical youth has experienced a rise in smoking rates in the 1990s, but in the past few years, male youth smoking rates are more than women. High, the smoking rate of white and American indigenous people was higher than other ethnic youth.

1975-2001 in the past 30 days in the first grade of junior high school. Source: data for monitoring the future (2002).

The process of becoming a regular and habitual smoker can be considered a series of transitions that start with the first "smoking start" that takes a break in cigarettes (Flay, Hu, and Richardson, 1998). What the research reveals is that smoking and experiments are the behavior of young people. Among adult smokers, the majority of the majority have tried tobacco for the first time in puberty, and most of them have shifted to habitual smoking by the age of 19 (Giovino, 1999). According to the latest estimates (2001), 36. 6 % of the secon d-year junior high school tried tobacco, 12. 2 % are currently smokers and 5. 5 % smoking every day. In the second grade of junior high school, 61 % have smoked, 29. 5 % are currently smokers, and 19 % smoke every day. Despite the recent decline, the current smoking rate is almost the same as a young man in the early 1980s (Monitoring the Future, 2002).

Tobacco Advertising Restrictions and Mass Media Counter-Marketing Campaigns

Tobacco Advertising Restrictions

"Social background" using youth tobacco is extremely important. Social and economic status is related to youth smoking, and youth in families with low parent's education and income levels are easier to smoke (Jacobson et al. 2001; GIOVINO, 1999). In addition, factors such as the attitude of smoking parents, friends and friends, the presence or absence of smoking of friends and friends, and the presence of smoking of parents and other families are all relevant to the smoking behavior of youth (Jacobson et al. 2001; Richter and Richter, 2001). In addition, the use of cigarettes in youth tends to flock with other types of risk behavior, including alcohol use (Windle and Windle, 1999; Bauman and Phongsavan, 1999). For example, youth who smoking tends to eat and drink (Johnson, Boles, Vaughan, and Kleber, 2000). The process of becoming a regular / habi t-friendly smoker can be considered a series of transitions through several stages, starting with the first "smoking start" that takes a break in cigarettes (Flay, Hu, and Richardson, 1998 ) What the research reveals is that smoking and experiments are the behavior of young people. Among adult smokers, the majority of the majority have tried tobacco for the first time in puberty, and most of them have shifted to habitual smoking by the age of 19 (Giovino, 1999). According to the latest estimates (2001), 36. 6 % of the secon d-year junior high school tried tobacco, 12. 2 % are currently smokers and 5. 5 % smoking every day. In the second grade of junior high school, 61 % have smoked, 29. 5 % are currently smokers, and 19 % smoke every day. Despite the recent decline, the current smoking rate is almost the same as a young man in the early 1980s (Monitoring the Future, 2002).

"Social background" using youth tobacco is extremely important. Social and economic status is related to youth smoking, and youth in families with low parent's education and income levels are easier to smoke (Jacobson et al. 2001; GIOVINO, 1999). In addition, factors such as the attitude of smoking parents, friends and friends, the presence or absence of smoking of friends and friends, and the presence of smoking of parents and other families are all relevant to the smoking behavior of youth (Jacobson et al. 2001; Richter and Richter, 2001). In addition, the use of cigarettes in youth tends to flock with other types of risk behavior, including alcohol use (Windle and Windle, 1999; Bauman and Phongsavan, 1999). For example, youth who smoking tends to eat and drink (Johnson, Boles, Vaughan, and Kleber, 2000). The process of becoming a regular and habitual smoker can be considered a series of transitions that start with the first "smoking start" that takes a break in cigarettes (Flay, Hu, and Richardson, 1998). What the research reveals is that smoking and experiments are the behavior of young people. Among adult smokers, the majority of the majority have tried tobacco for the first time in puberty, and most of them have shifted to habitual smoking by the age of 19 (Giovino, 1999). According to the latest estimates (2001), 36. 6 % of the secon d-year junior high school tried tobacco, 12. 2 % are currently smokers and 5. 5 % smoking every day. In the second grade of junior high school, 61 % have smoked, 29. 5 % are currently smokers, and 19 % smoke every day. Despite the recent decline, the current smoking rate is almost the same as a young man in the early 1980s (Monitoring the Future, 2002).

Mass Media Counter-Marketing Campaigns

Smoking prevalence among young adults (ages 19-25) also increased dramatically during the 1990s. Trend data from the National Health Interview Surveys indicate that current smoking prevalence among young adults increased from 22. 9% in 1991 to a peak of 27. 9% in 1999 (Lantz, 2002). Several studies suggest that this increase was observed among both college students and out-of-school young adults (Wechsler, Rigottu, Gledhill-Hoyt, and Lee, 1998; Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, 2001; Lantz, 2002). Smoking prevalence among young adults has also declined in recent years, but the steep increase seen in the 1990s remains alarming. Time series analyses (Lantz, 2002) suggest that approximately 75% of this increase is due to cohort effects. However, there is evidence to suggest that the increase in smoking among young adults should not be completely dismissed as a cohort effect. This evidence includes the increasing proportion of people who tried cigarettes who became habitual young adults, especially among men, and the concurrent increase in other types of substance use, such as binge drinking and use of illegal drugs such as marijuana, among adolescents and young adults in the 1990s (Johnston et al., 2001; Lantz, 2002). This suggests that substance risk-taking behavior in general was increasing among adolescents and young adults in the 1990s. Smoking prevalence among young adults (ages 19-25) also increased dramatically during the 1990s. Trend data from the National Health Interview Surveys indicate that current smoking prevalence among young adults increased from 22. 9% in 1991 to a peak of 27. 9% in 1999 (Lantz, 2002). Several studies suggest that this increase was observed among both college students and young adults not attending school (Wechsler, Rigottu, Gledhill-Hoyt, and Lee, 1998; Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, 2001; Lantz, 2002). Smoking rates among young adults have also declined in recent years, but the sharp increase seen in the 1990s remains alarming. Time series analyses (Lantz, 2002) suggest that approximately 75% of this increase is due to cohort effects. However, there is also evidence to suggest that the increase in smoking among young adults should not be completely dismissed as a cohort effect. This evidence includes the increasing rates of young adult habitual smokers among those who have tried tobacco, particularly among men, and the concurrent increase in other types of substance use, such as binge drinking and use of illegal drugs such as marijuana, among adolescents and young adults during the 1990s (Johnston et al., 2001; Lantz, 2002). This suggests that substance-related risk-taking behaviors in general were increasing among youth and young adults during the 1990s. Smoking prevalence among young adults (ages 19-25) also increased dramatically during the 1990s. Trend data from the National Health Interview Surveys indicate that current smoking prevalence among young adults increased from 22. 9% in 1991 to a peak of 27. 9% in 1999 (Lantz, 2002). Several studies suggest that this increase was observed among both college students and young adults not attending school (Wechsler, Rigottu, Gledhill-Hoyt, and Lee, 1998; Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, 2001; Lantz, 2002). Smoking rates among young adults have also declined in recent years, but the sharp increase seen in the 1990s remains alarming. Time series analyses (Lantz, 2002) suggest that approximately 75% of this increase is due to cohort effects. However, there is also evidence to suggest that the increase in smoking among young adults should not be completely dismissed as a cohort effect. This evidence includes increases in the rate at which people who have tried tobacco become habitual young adults, particularly among men, and a parallel increase in other types of substance use, including binge drinking and use of illicit drugs such as marijuana, among adolescents and young adults in the 1990s (Johnston et al., 2001; Lantz, 2002), suggesting that substance risk-taking behavior in general was increasing among adolescents and young adults in the 1990s.

For the past 30 years, many schoo l-based tobacco use programs have been implemented mainly at elementary and / or junior high school levels. Most of these programs tend to be based on one of the three major approaches: (1) Information that provides information on health risks and social adverse effects using tobacco in an attempt to deal with "lack of knowledge". In shortage or reasonable models, (2) Passional Education models that focus on improving sel f-esteem and clarifying values, and trying to affect the use of cigarettes, attitudes, intentions, and norms, (3) social Impact resistance models (BRUVOLD, 1993; Lantz et al., 2000). The last model emphasizes that the social environment is an important factor in using tobacco, in addition to personal factors such as knowledge and attitudes. I am. The important aspects of the social environment include friends' actions and attitudes, environmental, family, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, the intervention based on this model focuses on the construction of the skills needed to resist negative impacts, such as communication, decisio n-making skills, training in sel f-assertion, recognition of industrial advertising tactics and peers. Is placed. Some individual evaluations and met a-analysis results strongly suggest that this mode l-based educational program could have a negative effect on children and their families. For the past 30 years, many schoo l-based tobacco use programs have been implemented mainly at elementary and / or junior high school levels. Most of these programs tend to be based on one of the three major approaches: (1) Information that provides information on health risks and social adverse effects using tobacco in an attempt to deal with "lack of knowledge". In shortage or reasonable models, (2) Passional Education models that focus on improving sel f-esteem and clarifying values, and trying to affect the use of cigarettes, attitudes, intentions, and norms, (3) social Impact resistance models (BRUVOLD, 1993; Lantz et al., 2000). The last model emphasizes that the social environment is an important factor in using tobacco, in addition to personal factors such as knowledge and attitudes. I am. The important aspects of the social environment include friends' actions and attitudes, environmental, family, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, the intervention based on this model focuses on the construction of the skills needed to resist negative impacts, such as communication, decisio n-making skills, training in sel f-assertion, recognition of industrial advertising tactics and peers. Is placed. Some individual evaluations and met a-analysis results strongly suggest that this mode l-based educational program could have a negative effect on children and their families. For the past 30 years, many schoo l-based tobacco use programs have been implemented mainly at elementary and / or junior high school levels. Most of these programs tend to be based on one of the three major approaches: (1) Information that provides information on health risks and social adverse effects using tobacco in an attempt to deal with "lack of knowledge". In shortage or reasonable models, (2) Passional Education models that focus on improving sel f-esteem and clarifying values, and trying to affect the use of cigarettes, attitudes, intentions, and norms, (3) social Impact resistance models (BRUVOLD, 1993; Lantz et al., 2000). The last model emphasizes that the social environment is an important factor in using tobacco, in addition to personal factors such as knowledge and attitudes. I am. The important aspects of the social environment include friends' actions and attitudes, environmental, family, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, the intervention based on this model focuses on the construction of the skills needed to resist negative impacts, such as communication, decisio n-making skills, training in sel f-assertion, recognition of industrial advertising tactics and peers. Is placed. Some individual evaluations and met a-analysis results strongly suggest that this mode l-based educational program could have a negative effect on children and their families.

The recent trend in schoo l-based intervention is the use of the piercing program (for example, TEENS AGAINST TOBACCO USE) (Black, Tobler, and Sciacca, 1998). In this type of program, older students are trained to be an aggressive model, transmitting intervening elements to junior and senior high school students. However, since existing effects generally disappear in 1 to 4 years, there are generally concerns about the lon g-term effects of this type of educational intervention and other types of schoo l-based educational intervention (Jacobson et al., 2001). Booster intervention is required to maintain the effect over a long term (Botvin, 2000). Furthermore, just because the intervention is based on a social impact model does not mean that it is effective. For example, research on drug abuse resistance education (D. A. R. E. E. ®) programs (currently conducted in about thre e-quarters of elementary schools in the United States) is quite different, and most of them are shor t-term and/////// or/// or/ or/ or/. Not lon g-term effects (ahmed, ahmed, bennett, and hinds, 2002; 2001;

Based on a wide range of literature in this field, there are several guidelines for the development, implementation, evaluations of tobacc o-based tobacco, and "Best Practis" (IOM, 1994; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999B ) However, some studies have shown that educational interventions on young people smoking, that is, young people who have received interventions, indicating that the subsequent smoking rate will be significantly higher (Hawthorne, 1996; Elickson and Bell, 1990). For this trend, some experts are concerned that educational intervention, especially the educational intervention that focuses on the background of the social environment and a widespread community, could have the opposite effect (Peterson,). Kealth, Mann, Marek, and Sarason, 2000).

Over the past decade, the problem of accessing youth tobacco products has been exploded. There are many policy initiatives in many fields, such as restrictions on sellers, restrictions on distribution of free products, and efforts to limit sales by vending machines.

Tobacco Excise Taxes

Federal Public Law 102-321, enacted in 1991 and commonly referred to as the Cinar Amendment, requires states to (1) implement laws restricting the sale and distribution of tobacco products to minors and (2) demonstrate success in reducing youth access to tobacco or risk not receiving full drug abuse prevention and treatment block grant funding. The Cinar Amendment led to many advances in youth tobacco control, including the passage of age-of-sale laws that penalize vendors who sell tobacco to minors and the expanded use of undercover or “sting” operations (Jacobson and Wasserman, 1997). However, few jurisdictions appear to seriously enforce laws regarding sales of tobacco to minors. This lack of enforcement undermines the potential of such policies. Enforcement is a key component of potential effectiveness, and without continued enforcement, these types of laws appear harmless (Jacobson and Wasserman, 1997; Forster and Wolfson, 1998; Stead and Lancaster, 2000). Several community intervention studies have demonstrated that increased enforcement of laws regarding tobacco sales to minors actually reduces illegal sales (Rigotti, DiFranza, and Change, 1997; Altman, Wheelis, McFarlane, Lee, and Fortmann, 1999; Biglan et al.).

Unfortunately, there is limited evidence that reductions in adolescent tobacco purchases actually translate into reduced consumption or changes in smoking behavior. Most studies conducted in this area have only examined the impact of enforcement on adolescents' access and ability to purchase tobacco products, rather than the impact on smoking prevalence. Studies that have examined both sales and smoking behavior have generally not found that reduced sales correspond to reduced smoking (Forster and Wolfson, 1998; Lantz et al.). If illegal purchases are the primary way adolescents obtain tobacco, then one might expect the implementation of youth access laws to affect smoking behavior. However, in addition to illegal purchases, adolescents list many "social sources" (e. g., family, friends, or strangers) as sources of tobacco. Thus, from the evidence to date, it can be concluded that interventions that involve enforcement of state or local laws regarding tobacco sales to minors (i. e., "crackdowns" on vendors) can result in reduced illegal sales, but it remains speculative whether such enforcement also translates into sustained reductions in adolescent tobacco use. A recent and controversial response to youth tobacco use has been the implementation of state and/or local laws that impose penalties on youth for possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco products. Some tobacco control advocates have strongly protested this approach, arguing that it shifts attention and responsibility from vendors who sell tobacco products to children to the minors themselves. Nevertheless, this shift in focus gained significant momentum in the 1990s. Wakefield and Giovino (2002) report that the number of states that had enacted laws restricting tobacco possession by minors (those under the age of 18) increased from six in 1988 to 32 in 2001. In 2001, only six states and the District of Columbia had no laws that mandated any penalties for youth possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco products (Wakefield and Giovino, 2002). Penalties associated with these laws can range from receiving tickets, fines, court appearances (including special "teen courts"), suspension from school, loss of driver's license, referral to education or smoking cessation programs, community service, and/or other court-ordered responses. Unfortunately, there is limited evidence that reductions in adolescent tobacco purchases actually translate into reduced consumption or changes in smoking behavior. The majority of studies conducted in this area have only examined the impact of enforcement on adolescents' access or ability to purchase tobacco products, rather than the impact on smoking rates. Studies that have examined both sales and smoking behavior have generally not found that reduced sales correspond to reduced smoking (Forster and Wolfson, 1998; Lantz et al.). If illegal purchases are the primary way adolescents obtain tobacco, one might expect the implementation of youth access laws to affect smoking behavior. However, adolescents cite many "social sources" (such as family, friends, or strangers) as sources of tobacco in addition to illegal purchases. Thus, from the evidence to date, we can conclude that interventions involving the enforcement of state or local laws regarding tobacco sales to minors (i. e., “cracking down” vendors) can result in reductions in illicit sales, but it remains speculative whether such enforcement also leads to sustained reductions in tobacco use among adolescents.

A recent and controversial response to tobacco use among adolescents has been the enforcement of state and/or local laws that penalize adolescents for possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco products. Some tobacco control advocates have strongly protested that this approach seeks to shift attention and responsibility from vendors who sell tobacco products to children to the minors themselves. Nevertheless, this shift in focus gained significant momentum in the 1990s. Wakefield and Giovino (2002) report that the number of states that have enacted laws restricting tobacco possession by minors (those under the age of 18) increased from six in 1988 to 32 in 2001. In 2001, only six states and the District of Columbia had no laws mandating any penalties for adolescents possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco products (Wakefield and Giovino, 2002). Penalties associated with these laws vary from receiving tickets, fines, court appearances (including special "teen courts"), suspension from school, loss of driver's license, referral to education or smoking cessation programs, community service, and/or other court-ordered responses. Unfortunately, there is limited evidence that reductions in adolescent tobacco purchases actually translate into reduced consumption or changes in smoking behavior. The majority of studies conducted in this area have only examined the impact of enforcement on adolescents' access and ability to purchase tobacco products, rather than the impact on smoking rates. Studies that have examined both sales and smoking behavior have generally not found that reduced sales correspond to reduced smoking (Forster and Wolfson, 1998; Lantz et al.). If illegal purchase is the primary way adolescents obtain tobacco, one might expect the implementation of youth access laws to have an impact on smoking behavior. However, in addition to illegal purchases, adolescents cite many “social sources” (e. g., family, friends, or strangers) as sources of tobacco. Thus, from the evidence to date, we can conclude that interventions involving enforcement of state or local laws regarding tobacco sales to minors (i. e., “cracking down” vendors) may result in reductions in illegal sales, but it remains speculative whether such enforcement also leads to sustained reductions in tobacco use among adolescents.

Smoke-Free Space Policies

A more recent and controversial response to tobacco use among adolescents has been the implementation of state and/or local laws that penalize adolescents for possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco products. Some tobacco control advocates have strongly protested that this approach seeks to shift attention and responsibility from vendors who sell tobacco products to children to the minors themselves. Nonetheless, this shift in focus gained significant momentum in the 1990s. Wakefield and Giovino (2002) reported that the number of states with laws restricting tobacco possession by minors (those under 18 years of age) increased from six in 1988 to 32 in 2001. In 2001, only six states and the District of Columbia had no laws mandating any penalties for adolescents possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco products (Wakefield and Giovino, 2002). Penalties associated with these laws vary, including receiving tickets, fines, court appearances (including special "teen courts"), suspension from school, loss of driver's privileges, referral to education or smoking cessation programs, community service, and/or other court-ordered responses.

There are a small number of studies conducted to evaluate the effects of youth penalties for the purchase and use of youth tobacco. WakeField and Giovino (2002) summarizes the limited amount of research so far:

Based on these studies, it is difficult to conclude that the law of [possession, use, purchase] has a strong positive effect. Some research suggests that the effects of some subgroups, such as lo w-grade students with low risk, are small. However, when evaluating the value of the [these] laws, it is important to consider the net effects of the Law, rather than paying attention to one positive side or negative aspect.

Smoking Cessation Interventions

These reasons include the unlimited relationship with the youth, which is unlikely to be caught, is unlikely to be punished, has a long time from being caught to punishment, and the relationship with the youth related to the penalty (country). Includes, or far away.

Furthermore, laws related to possession, use, and purchases may actually weaken or confuse school initiatives (KROPP, 1998), or are already vulnerable or have problems. There is also a concern that it may be intensified (WoodHouse, Sayre, and Livingood, 2001; WakeField and Giovino, 2002) has also been raised. There is also a concern that this type of regulation will also focus on young people, and will further strengthen the assumptions of the industry that the tobacco industry will escape the responsibility for its marketing tactics and smoke is only for adults. As with the Youth Access Law, there is almost no evidence that this type of regulation has a major impact on the smoking behavior of youth. For this reason, some tobacco regulation experts want to shift research, intervening measures, and advocacy resources from this policy (Ling, Landman, and Glantz, 2002; Fichtenberg and Glantz, 2002; Glantz. , 1996). A few studies conducted to evaluate the impact of the youth penalties for the purchase and use of young people. WakeField and Giovino (2002) summarizes the limited amount of research so far:

These reasons include the unlimited relationship with the youth, which is unlikely to be caught, is unlikely to be punished, has a long time from being caught to punishment, and the relationship with the youth related to the penalty (country). Includes, or far away.

The Case for Community Interventions and Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs

Furthermore, laws related to possession, use, and purchases may actually weaken or confuse school initiatives (KROPP, 1998), or are already vulnerable or have problems. There is also a concern that it may be intensified (WoodHouse, Sayre, and Livingood, 2001; WakeField and Giovino, 2002) has also been raised. There is also a concern that this type of regulation will also focus on young people, and will further strengthen the assumptions of the industry that the tobacco industry will escape the responsibility for its marketing tactics and smoke is only for adults. As with the Youth Access Law, there is almost no evidence that this type of regulation has a major impact on the smoking behavior of youth. For this reason, some tobacco regulation experts want to shift research, intervening measures, and advocacy resources from this policy (Ling, Landman, and Glantz, 2002; Fichtenberg and Glantz, 2002; Glantz. , 1996). There are a small number of studies conducted to evaluate the effects of youth penalties for the purchase and use of youth tobacco. WakeField and Giovino (2002) summarizes the limited amount of research so far:

These reasons include the unlimited relationship between the possibility of being caught, the unlikely result of being punished, the lon g-time time from being caught, and the relationship with the youth related to the penalties (country). Includes, or far away.

Furthermore, laws related to possession, use, and purchases may actually weaken or confuse school initiatives (KROPP, 1998), or are already vulnerable or problems. There is also a concern that it may be intensified (WoodHouse, Sayre, and Livingood, 2001; WakeField and Giovino, 2002) has also been raised. There is also a concern that this type of regulation will also focus on young people, and will further strengthen the assumptions of the industry that the tobacco industry will escape the responsibility for its marketing tactics and smoke is only for adults. As with the Youth Access Law, there is almost no evidence that this type of regulation has a major impact on the smoking behavior of youth. For this reason, some tobacco regulation experts want to shift research, intervention measures, and advocacy resources from this policy (Ling, Landman, and Glantz, 2002; Fichtenberg and Glantz, 2002; Glantz. , 1996).

As a product for consumer, cigarettes are advertised and sold in large quantities. The representatives of the tobacco industry are responding that only adults are selling, but the tobacco industry is a product line targeting youth and even younger children, and a larg e-scale advertising campaign. Evidence indicating that it is actually developing is in large quantities and increasing (Jacobson et al., 2001). As a result of investigating industry documents, Perry concluded that the industry itself has the following important evidence: (1) It has been considered that smoking of youth is indispensable for economic survival, (2). The decrease in smoking in young people has been recognized as negative and disturbing, and (3) specific products and advertising strategies have been achieved, especially for youth (perry, 1999).

There is a great concern that cigarette advertisements and marketing, including distribution of sales promotional items such as clothing, sports equipment, and outdoor equipment, are actively related to youth smoking. It is also very concern that the increase in marketing activities for young adults, such as o n-site, bars, nightclubs, and music events, is one of the causes of the increase in smoking in young adults (Ling). And Glantz, 2002; Lantz, 2002). Cigarettes are advertised and sold as consumers. The representatives of the tobacco industry are responding that only adults are selling, but the tobacco industry is a product line targeting youth and even younger children, and a larg e-scale advertising campaign. Evidence indicating that it is actually developing is in large quantities and increasing (Jacobson et al., 2001). As a result of investigating industry documents, Perry concluded that the industry itself has the following important evidence: (1) It has been considered that smoking of youth is indispensable for economic survival, (2). The decrease in smoking in young people has been recognized as negative and disturbing, and (3) specific products and advertising strategies have been achieved, especially for youth (perry, 1999).

There is a great concern that cigarette advertisements and marketing, including distribution of sales promotional items such as clothing, sports equipment, and outdoor equipment, are actively related to youth smoking. It is also very concern that the increase in marketing activities for young adults, such as o n-site, bars, nightclubs, and music events, is one of the causes of the increase in smoking in young adults (Ling). And Glantz, 2002; Lantz, 2002). As a product for consumer, cigarettes are advertised and sold in large quantities. The representatives of the tobacco industry are responding that only adults are selling, but the tobacco industry is a product line targeting youth and even younger children, and a larg e-scale advertising campaign. Evidence indicating that it is actually developing is in large quantities and increasing (Jacobson et al., 2001). As a result of investigating industry documents, Perry concluded that the industry itself has the following important evidence: (1) It has been considered that smoking of youth is indispensable for economic survival, (2). The decrease in smoking in young people has been recognized as negative and disturbing, and (3) specific products and advertising strategies have been achieved, especially for youth (perry, 1999).

It is technically difficult to estimate the effects of smoking, advertising and promotional effects on cigarette consumption. Some studies have shown that the most popular cigarettes among young smokers are the largest advertisements (Difranza, 1991; Cummings, Hyland, Pechacek, ORLANDI, And lynn, 1997; arnett and terHanian, 1998). Research has also found that young people, who are likely to use tobacco and alcohol in the future, have a more favorable response to product advertisements (UNGER, Johnson, and ROHRBACH, 1995). Furthermore, it suggests that youth recognizes cigarette marketing campaigns, receiving free tobacco samples, and receiving direct mail promotional items is related to smoking sensitivity and smoking start. There are also increasing research evidence (Schooler, Feighery, and Flora, 1996; Gilpin and Piance, 1997; FeigHery, Borzekowski, Schoorer, and Flora, 1998). Some evidence up to now is persuasive, but these studies are more relevant than the causal relationship between exposure to tobacco advertising / marketing and youth smoking. Two vertical research indicates evidence that being exposed to tobacco industries at a young age to be related to the subsequent smoking (Pierce, Gilpin, and Choi, 1999; Pucci and Siegal, 1999). In fact, PIERCE and their colleagues (1999) are nearly on e-third of the California youth attempts to smoke between 1993 and 1996. Conclusion (Pierce and Siegal, 1999). It is technically difficult to estimate the effects of smoking and the effects of advertising and promotion to cigarette consumption. Some studies have shown that the most popular cigarettes among young smokers are the largest advertisements (Difranza, 1991; Cummings, Hyland, Pechacek, ORLANDI, And lynn, 1997; arnett and terHanian, 1998). Research has also found that young people, who are likely to use tobacco and alcohol in the future, have a more favorable response to product advertisements (UNGER, Johnson, and ROHRBACH, 1995). Furthermore, it suggests that youth recognizes cigarette marketing campaigns, receiving free tobacco samples, and receiving direct mail promotional items is related to smoking sensitivity and smoking start. There are also increasing research evidence (Schooler, Feighery, and Flora, 1996; Gilpin and Piance, 1997; FeigHery, Borzekowski, Schoorer, and Flora, 1998). Some evidence up to now is persuasive, but these studies are more relevant than the causal relationship between exposure to tobacco advertising / marketing and youth smoking. Two vertical research indicates evidence that being exposed to tobacco industries at a young age to be related to the subsequent smoking (Pierce, Gilpin, and Choi, 1999; Pucci and Siegal, 1999). In fact, PIERCE and their colleagues (1999) are nearly on e-third of the California youth attempts to smoke between 1993 and 1996. Conclusion (Pierce and Siegal, 1999). It is technically difficult to estimate the effects of smoking, advertising and promotional effects on cigarette consumption. Some studies have shown that the most popular cigarettes among young smokers are the largest advertisements (Difranza, 1991; Cummings, Hyland, Pechacek, ORLANDI, And lynn, 1997; arnett and terHanian, 1998). Research has also found that young people, who are likely to use tobacco and alcohol in the future, have a more favorable response to product advertisements (UNGER, Johnson, and ROHRBACH, 1995). Furthermore, it suggests that youth recognizes cigarette marketing campaigns, receiving free tobacco samples, and receiving direct mail promotional items is related to smoking sensitivity and smoking start. There are also increasing research evidence (Schooler, Feighery, and Flora, 1996; Gilpin and Piance, 1997; Feighery, Borzekowski, Schoorer, and Flora, 1998). Some evidence up to now is compelling, but these studies are more relevant than the causal relationship between exposure to cigarette advertising / marketing and youth smoking. Two vertical research indicates evidence that being exposed to tobacco industries at a young age to be related to the subsequent smoking (Pierce, Gilpin, and Choi, 1999; Pucci and Siegal, 1999). In fact, PIERCE and their colleagues (1999) are nearly on e-third of the California youth attempts to smoke between 1993 and 1996. Conclusion (Pierce and Siegal, 1999).

Mass media strategies have been used for widespread public education on a variety of public health issues, including vaccination, domestic violence, drinking and driving, illegal drug use, and tobacco use. Mass media efforts are generally considered to be particularly effective in reaching adolescents because they are more likely to be interested in and exposed to media messages. Many localities and states have implemented robust and sophisticated anti-tobacco media campaigns that are primarily targeted at adolescents. This has been implemented primarily as part of state-funded tobacco control programs, but also through the efforts of advocacy and activist groups (Jacobson et al.). Many of these campaigns have focused on efforts to “counter” the tobacco industry’s efforts to glamorize smoking and to downplay or deny the addictive and harmful properties of tobacco products (Farrelly et al.). Indeed, both the Florida campaign run by the American Legacy Foundation (an independent foundation established as part of a multistate settlement with the tobacco industry) and the subsequent national effort were labeled “truth campaigns” (Farrelly et al.). In addition, state and local campaigns have employed or continue to employ a number of thematic approaches and messaging strategies, including short-term and long-term consequences of smoking and changing social norms regarding smoking (Farrelly et al.). While the independent effects of mass media campaigns on smoking behavior are difficult to assess, evaluations from a number of community trials and statewide campaigns provide evidence that such interventions are effective in reducing youth smoking. Farrelly (2002b) concluded in a recent review:

DISCUSSION: LESSONS FOR YOUTH ALCOHOL POLICY

[There is growing evidence that aggressive state youth smoking prevention campaigns have been effective in reducing tobacco use, although the extent to which tobacco price increases and other concurrent programs contributed to these reductions remains unclear. Mass media strategies have been used for extensive public education on a variety of public health issues, including vaccinations, domestic violence, drunk driving, illegal drug use, and tobacco use. Mass media efforts are generally considered to be particularly effective in reaching adolescents because adolescents are more likely to be interested in and exposed to media messages. Many localities and states have implemented robust and sophisticated anti-tobacco media campaigns that are primarily targeted at adolescents. This has been done primarily as part of state-funded tobacco control programs, but also through the efforts of advocacy and activist groups (Jacobson et al.). Many of these campaigns have focused on "countering" the tobacco industry's efforts to glamorize smoking and to downplay or deny the addictive and harmful aspects of tobacco products (Farrelly et al. al.) Indeed, both the Florida campaign by the American Legacy Foundation (an independent foundation established as part of a multistate settlement with the tobacco industry) and subsequent national efforts were labelled "truth campaigns" (Farrelly et al.). In addition, state and local campaigns have employed or are employing a number of thematic approaches and messaging strategies, including short-term and long-term consequences of smoking and changing social norms about smoking (Farrelly et al.).

Although it is difficult to assess the independent effects of mass media campaigns on smoking behaviour, evaluations from a number of community trials and statewide campaigns provide evidence that such interventions are effective in reducing adolescent smoking. In a recent review, Farrelly et al. (2002b) concluded:

[There is growing evidence that aggressive state youth smoking prevention campaigns have been effective in reducing tobacco use, but the extent to which cigarette price increases and other concurrent programmes contributed to these reductions remains unclear. Mass media strategies have been used for widespread public education on a variety of public health issues, including vaccination, domestic violence, drinking and driving, illegal drug use, and tobacco use. Mass media efforts are generally considered to be particularly effective in reaching adolescents because they are more likely to be interested in and exposed to media messages. Many localities and states have implemented robust and sophisticated anti-tobacco media campaigns that are primarily targeted at adolescents. This has been implemented primarily as part of state-funded tobacco control programs, but also through the efforts of advocacy and activist groups (Jacobson et al.). Many of these campaigns have focused on efforts to “counter” the tobacco industry’s efforts to glamorize smoking and to downplay or deny the addictive and harmful properties of tobacco products (Farrelly et al.). Indeed, both the Florida campaign run by the American Legacy Foundation (an independent foundation established as part of a multistate settlement with the tobacco industry) and the subsequent national effort were labeled “truth campaigns” (Farrelly et al.). In addition, state and local campaigns have employed or continue to employ a number of thematic approaches and messaging strategies, including short-term and long-term consequences of smoking and changing social norms regarding smoking (Farrelly et al.). While the independent effects of mass media campaigns on smoking behavior are difficult to assess, evaluations from a number of community trials and statewide campaigns provide evidence that such interventions are effective in reducing youth smoking. Farrelly (2002b) concluded in a recent review:

[There is growing evidence that aggressive state youth smoking prevention campaigns have been effective in reducing tobacco use, but the extent to which tobacco price increases and other concurrent programs contributed to these reductions remains unclear.

Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeted at adolescents appear to have greater potential when reinforced by other concurrent community- and school-based efforts (Jacobson et al., 2001; Farrelly, Niederdeppe, and Yarsevich, 2002b). In addition, media campaigns that are theoretically based and that include essential elements of social marketing are most likely to influence attitudes and behaviors regarding tobacco use. The available literature suggests that mass media interventions will be more impactful if the following conditions are met: (1) the campaign strategy is based on sound social marketing principles, (2) the effort is sufficiently large and powerful, (3) the target groups are carefully differentiated, (4) the messages to a particular target group resonate with the group's "core values" (rather than simply preaching about the health risks of tobacco use) and are based on empirical findings about the needs and interests of that group, and (5) the campaign is of sufficient duration rather than being a one-off, limited effort (Jacobson et al.

In the last few years, two major tobacco companies have launched their own media campaigns against youth smoking: (1) "Don't Smoke" by Philip Morris, and (2) "Tobacco is Whackco, if You're a Teen" by Lorillard. The electronic and print ads that make up these campaigns take many forms, but the core message is that smoking is an adult activity and children should not engage in it. Given what we know about youth smoking prevention and social marketing in general, there are many reasons to believe that the approach taken by the tobacco industry will not be effective. In fact, there is reason to believe that the message will make smoking, a forbidden "adult" behavior, even more attractive to adolescents. Farrelly et al. report that, regarding the Philip Morris approach, exposure to the ad, while not particularly persuasive in itself for many teens, was associated with more positive attitudes toward the tobacco industry and increased intentions regarding future smoking (Farrelly et al.). A developmental psychologist with experience in advertising and marketing writes, "This (type of phenomenon) is behind the 'don't stick a bean up your nose' phenomenon in parenting." We don't recommend giving this command to preschoolers. And for that matter, maybe we shouldn't tell teenagers not to smoke either" (Rust, 1999, p. 87). Thus, a cynic might say, the tobacco industry is encouraging people to smoke.

As a policy strategy, tobacco taxes not only generate revenue for federal, state, and some local governments, but also create economic disincentives to use tobacco products. In theory, raising the price of tobacco through taxes can reduce youth consumption through three main mechanisms: (1) providing incentives to quit smoking, (2) providing incentives to reduce the amount of tobacco smoked, and (3) preventing some youth from starting smoking (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1994). The extent to which higher tobacco taxes actually promote these mechanisms depends on how well smokers and potential smokers respond to the price increase.

There has been a large body of economic research on consumer responsiveness to tobacco pricing (or "price elasticity of demand"), but most of it has focused on adults or on overall tobacco demand, with relatively few studies focusing on adolescents. The conclusion of most studies is that higher tobacco prices lead to reduced consumption among adults (Chaloupka and Warner, 2000). Evidence on how teenagers respond to changes in tobacco prices is a bit more mixed, but the general consensus is that higher prices are an effective deterrent to youth smoking (Jacobson et al., 2001; Lantz et al., 2000). Indeed, some studies have found an inverse relationship between price sensitivity and age, meaning that adolescents are more sensitive to tobacco prices than adults (Farrelly and Bray, 1998; Lewit et al., 1997; Dee and Evans, 1998). Because most excise tax increases in the United States have been relatively small to date, it is difficult to accurately predict the impact of a large tax increase (e. g., more than $1 per pack) on youth smoking. One could assume that the effect would be proportionately larger than for smaller tax increases, but this is not certain. Nonetheless, the evidence to date suggests that tobacco tax increases are an effective policy strategy for reducing youth smoking.

Since the 1980s, policy efforts to restrict smoking in public spaces, such as airplanes, public/government buildings, workplaces, hospitals, restaurants, bars, and hotels, have become more frequent. The main purpose of these smoking bans is to reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. These types of policies are also thought to affect smoking behavior. In theory, smoking bans affect smoking behavior primarily because they reduce opportunities to smoke, provide additional motivation for those considering quitting to quit, and help create and reinforce social norms against smoking. Several studies have shown that this type of "clean air" policy can affect adult smoking and can be implemented without adverse economic consequences (Brownson et al., 1997; Glantz and Charlesworth, 1999; Glantz, 1999). Although a large number of economic studies have been conducted on consumer responsiveness to tobacco pricing (or "price elasticity of demand"), most of these studies have focused on adults or on tobacco demand overall, with relatively few studies focusing on adolescents. The conclusion of most studies is that higher tobacco prices lead to reduced consumption among adults (Chaloupka and Warner, 2000). Evidence on the extent to which teenagers respond to changes in tobacco prices is a bit more mixed, but the general consensus is that higher prices are an effective deterrent to youth smoking (Jacobson et al., 2001; Lantz et al., 2000). In fact, some studies have found an inverse relationship between price sensitivity and age, i. e., young people are more sensitive to the price of cigarettes than adults (Farrelly and Bray, 1998; Lewit et al., 1997; Dee and Evans, 1998).

CONCLUSION

Most excise tax increases in the United States have been relatively small to date, making it difficult to accurately predict the impact of large tax increases (e. g., more than $1 per pack) on youth smoking. One might expect the effect to be proportionately larger than for smaller tax increases, but this is not certain. Nonetheless, the evidence to date suggests that tobacco tax increases are an effective policy strategy to reduce youth smoking.

Since the 1980s, there have been many policy efforts to restrict smoking in public spaces, such as airplanes, public/government buildings, workplaces, hospitals, restaurants, bars, and hotels. The primary purpose of these smoking bans is to reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. It is believed that these types of policies also affect smoking behavior. Theoretically, smoking bans affect smoking behavior primarily because they reduce opportunities to smoke, provide additional motivation for those considering quitting to quit, and help create and reinforce social norms against smoking. Several studies have shown that this type of "clean air" policy can affect adult smoking and can be implemented without adverse economic consequences (Brownson et al., 1997; Glantz and Charlesworth, 1999; Glantz, 1999). Although a large number of economic studies have been conducted on consumer responsiveness to tobacco pricing (or "price elasticity of demand"), most of these studies have focused on adults or on tobacco demand overall, with relatively few studies focusing on adolescents. The conclusion of most studies is that higher tobacco prices lead to reduced consumption among adults (Chaloupka and Warner, 2000). Evidence on how teenagers respond to changes in cigarette prices is a bit more mixed, but the general consensus is that higher prices are an effective deterrent to youth smoking (Jacobson et al., 2001; Lantz et al., 2000). Indeed, several studies have found an inverse relationship between price sensitivity and age, i. e., that youth are more sensitive to cigarette prices than adults (Farrelly and Bray, 1998; Lewit et al., 1997; Dee and Evans, 1998).

REFERENCES

Most excise tax increases in the United States have been relatively small to date, making it difficult to predict precisely how large tax increases (e. g., more than $1 per pack) will affect youth smoking. One could assume that the effect would be proportionately larger than for smaller tax increases, but this is not certain. Nonetheless, the evidence to date suggests that increasing cigarette taxes is an effective policy strategy for reducing youth smoking.

The impact of smoking space policy on youth is not clear. However, there are several studies that have discovered evidence that the law that cleans indoor air reduces the consumption of teenage tobacco (Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Wasserman, Newhouse, and Winter, 1991). Youth seems to be affected by a schoo l-based policy related to the use of cigarettes (WakeField et alt, 2000; Pinilla et al., 2002; CHALOUPKA and GROSSMAN, 1996; The school has a unique smoking regulations, and has responded to a variety of penalties, such as fine, smoking education, no n-smoking classrooms, notifications to students, suspension, dropping out of school, and social service activities. These policies are obviously targeting youth, but can also limit adult smoking behavior. Like other types of tobacc o-related policies, it seems that schoo l-based policies need to be implemented effectively. As Moore, Roberts, and Tudor-Smith (2001) recorded, the student smoking rate is related to the strength of smoking policies and its execution. There are some evidence that the number of elementary and junior high schools that formulate and implement smoking policies is increasing, and that policies are being implemented more aggressively (Jacobson et al., 2001). In the past decade, many university campuses have fully or partially quit smoking. Development of no n-smoking environment on campus (

A new field of interest is a smoking policy based on family or home. Although studies on this theme have been rarely conducted so far, early research has suggested that if there are clear rules for smoking in the home environment, you will have a negative effect on youth's smoking behavior (Biglan and others. 1996; Spoth, Redmond, SHIN, 2001). The impact of no n-smoking spatial policy on youth is not clear. However, there are several studies that have discovered evidence that the law that cleans indoor air reduces the consumption of teenage tobacco (Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Wasserman, Newhouse, and Winter, 1991). Youth seems to be affected by a schoo l-based policy related to the use of cigarettes (WakeField et alt, 2000; Pinilla et al., 2002; CHALOUPKA and GROSSMAN, 1996; The school has a unique smoking regulations, and has responded to a variety of penalties, such as fine, smoking education, no n-smoking classrooms, notifications to students, suspension, dropping out of school, and social service activities. These policies are obviously targeting youth, but can also limit adult smoking behavior. Like other types of tobacc o-related policies, it seems that schoo l-based policies need to be implemented effectively. As Moore, Roberts, and Tudor-Smith (2001) recorded, the student smoking rate is related to the strength of smoking policies and its execution. There are some evidence that the number of elementary and junior high schools that formulate and implement smoking policies is increasing, and that policies are being implemented more aggressively (Jacobson et al., 2001). In the past decade, many university campuses have fully or partially quit smoking. Development of no n-smoking environment on campus (

A new field of interest is a smoking policy based on family or home. Although studies on this theme have been rarely conducted so far, early research has suggested that if there are clear rules for smoking in the home environment, you will have a negative effect on youth's smoking behavior (Biglan and others. 1996; Spoth, Redmond, SHIN, 2001). The impact of smoking space policy on youth is not clear. However, there are several studies that have discovered evidence that the law that cleans indoor air reduces the consumption of teenage tobacco (Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Wasserman, Newhouse, and Winter, 1991). Youth seems to be affected by a schoo l-based policy related to the use of cigarettes (WakeField et alt, 2000; Pinilla et al., 2002; CHALOUPKA and GROSSMAN, 1996; The school has a unique smoking regulations, and has responded to a variety of penalties, such as fine, smoking education, no n-smoking classrooms, notifications to students, suspension, dropping out of school, and social service activities. These policies are clearly targeted for young people, but can also limit adult smoking behavior. Like other types of tobacc o-related policies, it seems that schoo l-based policies need to be implemented effectively. As Moore, Roberts, and Tudor-Smith (2001) recorded, the student smoking rate is related to the strength of smoking policies and its execution. There are some evidence that the number of elementary and junior high schools that formulate and implement smoking policies is increasing, and that policies are being implemented more aggressively (Jacobson et al., 2001). In the past decade, many university campuses have fully or partially quit smoking. Development of no n-smoking environment on campus (

In the face of rising adolescent smoking rates and mounting empirical evidence on the limitations of many primary prevention strategies, interest in the efficacy of adolescent smoking cessation interventions has grown over the past decade. Numerous descriptive surveys and focus group studies have clearly demonstrated that many teen smokers are indeed motivated to quit smoking (Jacobson et al.). For example, in a sample of high school seniors, nearly 70% of regular smokers had attempted to quit at least once, and 60% had attempted to quit in the past year (Burt and Peterson, 1998). However, smoking cessation success rates are significantly lower among adolescents (Mermelstein, 2002). In addition, many young people seem to think of quitting smoking as something they do alone, a "withdrawal cessation." Most adolescent smokers are unfamiliar with the concept of smoking cessation programs and how to support them in their quit attempts. Those who are aware tend to express concerns about confidentiality and parental involvement in quitting efforts (Jacobson et al., 2001). The psychology and physiology of nicotine dependence in adolescents is poorly understood, as are the effects of smoking cessation interventions in this population (Mermelstein, 2002; Jacobson et al., 2001; Sussman, 2002). None of the currently available pharmacological interventions or nicotine replacement therapies are approved for use under the age of 18. Mermelstein (2002, p. 6) summarizes the current state of knowledge regarding teen smoking cessation by saying, "Evidence on smoking cessation interventions for adolescents is beginning to grow, but unfortunately, previous studies have often suffered from significant methodological problems, including lack of control or comparison groups, inadequate measures of smoking cessation, too short follow-up periods, and vague descriptions of the interventions."

According to the evidence at hand, some of the yout h-smoking interventions for young people seem to have a limited success. SUSSMAN (2002) estimated average smoking cessation rate in many studies, clarifying that the smoking cessation rate immediately after the intervening program was twice (14 % to 7 %). However, this average smoking cessation rate is much lower than the smoking cessation rate observed by adults, and is immediately after the end of the program, so shor t-term or lon g-term sustainability is not mentioned. At this time, many researchers and tobacco policy experts have been "optimistic" or "optimistic" whether they are only speculating the possibility of no n-smoking intervention in young people. To date, there were only two studies for minors about nicotine patches, and all of them had very low smoking cessation rates (Hurt, 2000; Smith, 1996). It is too early to describe "Best Practis" or make policy proposals in this field, but Mermelstein (2002) concludes:

Emphasis on skill training and sel f-management approach [Omitted] The intuition behavioral approach may probably be promising, along with a simple motivation interview procedure in the medical provision environment.

Considering the current status of youth cigarettes, it is suggested that many preventive strategies are promising, especially when performing in cooperation with the potential synergistic effects between intervention measures. (Jacobson et al.) For example, there is a research result that intervention in mass media is the most effective when it is implemented in conjunction with schoo l-based initiatives and intervening in the local community (Farrelly. NIEDERDEPPE, and Yarsevich, 2002b). Research has also shown that educational intervention based on schools is enhanced by being supported by intervening in a local community for the social environment. In addition, it is clear that a considerable number of young people fail in primary prevention, so it is clear that secondary prevention efforts (eg, tobacco use) need to complement the primary prevention strategy. According to evidence at hand, some no n-smoking intervention for young people seems to have been limited. SUSSMAN (2002) estimated average smoking cessation rate in many studies, clarifying that the smoking cessation rate immediately after the intervening program was twice (14 % to 7 %). However, this average smoking cessation rate is much lower than the smoking cessation rate observed by adults, and is immediately after the end of the program, so shor t-term or lon g-term sustainability is not mentioned. At this time, many researchers and tobacco policy experts have been "optimistic" or "optimistic" whether they are only speculating the possibility of no n-smoking intervention in young people. To date, there were only two studies for minors about nicotine patches, and all of them had very low smoking cessation rates (Hurt, 2000; Smith, 1996). It is too early to describe "Best Practis" or make policy proposals in this field, but Mermelstein (2002) concludes:

Considering the current status of youth cigarettes, it is suggested that many preventive strategies are promising, especially when performing in cooperation with the potential synergistic effects between intervention measures. (Jacobson et al.) For example, there is a research result that intervention in mass media is the most effective when it is implemented in conjunction with schoo l-based initiatives and intervening in the local community (Farrelly. NIEDERDEPPE, and Yarsevich, 2002b). Research has also shown that educational intervention based on schools is enhanced by being supported by intervening in a local community for the social environment. In addition, it is clear that a considerable number of young people fail in primary prevention, so it is clear that secondary prevention efforts (eg, tobacco use) need to complement the primary prevention strategy. According to the evidence at hand, some of the yout h-smoking interventions for young people seem to have a limited success. SUSSMAN (2002) estimated average smoking cessation rate in many studies, clarifying that the smoking cessation rate immediately after the intervening program was twice (14 % to 7 %). However, this average smoking cessation rate is much lower than the smoking cessation rate observed by adults, and is immediately after the end of the program, so shor t-term or lon g-term sustainability is not mentioned. At this time, many researchers and tobacco policy experts have been "optimistic" or "optimistic" whether they are only speculating the possibility of no n-smoking intervention in young people. To date, there were only two studies for minors about nicotine patches, and all of them had very low smoking cessation rates (Hurt, 2000; Smith, 1996). It is too early to describe "Best Practis" or make policy proposals in this field, but Mermelstein (2002) concludes:

As a result of deepening understanding of individual factors and social environments on the use of cigarettes, intervening into the local community has been emphasized. In general, intervention in the community has multiple elements targeting local communities at various levels, such as individuals, systems, policies, and a wide range of social environments. A typical or common element is the focus on changing the social environment and social background where tobacco products are used and used under the common goal of creating an environment that supports no n-smoking and smoking cessation. 。 In intervention activities, family, schools, local organizations, worship areas, companies, media, welfare and health institutions, governments, law execution agencies, etc. are generally changed at both individuals and environments. As an example of regional intervention measures for the use of cigarettes (Jacobson et al.) King Intervention Study for Cancer Prevention) , Fighting Back program, etc. (Jacobson et al.)

In order to reduce the use of youth cigarettes, many local communities are implementing intervention measures focusing on the local community, composed of multiple elements, but used research plans using contrast groups and comparative groups. Regarding the evaluation, only a handful of reports have been announced. Nevertheless, some research results are promising. For example, in the 15 regions of the Kansas City region, the media, school education, parent education, regional organization, policy proposals are combined, and the use of youth tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs is significantly used. It has decreased. Especially with regard to youth smoking, the current smoking rate two years after the intervention was 29 % of the controlled area, and 19 % in the target area (Pentz et al.) Class of 1989 Study (this is Minnesota Heart. Positive evaluation results have been reported from interventions in rural areas in Oregon (1992; Biglan, 1999) in Rural Intervention in Oregon (part of the Health Program) called Health Program.

There is a big difference between "community-focused" or "community-based" interventions and truly "community-based" interventions. Interventions that target a particular community and seek to reach diverse audiences through multiple channels within that community need to be designed and implemented with a strong community perspective. This community perspective is best achieved by ensuring that the intervention and all of its components are actually designed and planned by people in the community that will receive the intervention, rather than by outside "experts" who are likely to lack a full understanding of the community's particular historical, cultural, socio-economic, and political context, or how best to leverage the strengths and assets that already exist in the community. The perspective and principles of “community-engaged research” – where community members share full ownership and control over all stages of intervention design, implementation, and evaluation – are crucial to community-based efforts in tobacco control among adolescents (Israel et al.).

In summary, community interventions through parents/family, schools, local media, and community groups appear to have stronger impacts when implemented in concert over time than interventions implemented alone or separately (Jacobson et al.). However, the results of the few controlled trials of community interventions also suggest that most community interventions are likely insufficient to produce dramatic and sustained reductions in tobacco use among adolescents. To produce significant and long-lasting effects, community interventions need to be combined with taxation, strong advocacy efforts aimed at policy and social environmental change, and strong and sustained mass media strategies.

The deeper understanding of local community intervention research, the increase in state tobacco tax in most states and the possibility of the use of resources through basic settlement agreements, spurred the development of coordinated initiatives based on state of youth tobacco. I'm wearing it. For the past decade, some State Health Bureau has implemented what is called "comprehensive tobacco prevention and management programs." These state programs adopt a variety of strategies to approach various subjects, incorporate multiple types of interventions in the region, state, and local levels, and try to have powerful policy elements. Comprehensive (Jacobson et al.) This kind of comprehensive tobacco countermeasure program "Best Practis" is compiled by the Diseases Prevention Center (CDC, 1999A). The following are recommended elements of the comprehensive program: (1) Interventions rooted in the community, (3) intervening in the school, (3) (3) (3) (3) 4) Media activities against marketing, (5) no n-smoking programs, (6) enforcement of existing laws and policies, (7) Intervention programs for chronic diseases caused by tobacco, (8) Surveyance and rating. Initiatives, (9) dedicated management and operation. The deepening understanding of regional social intervention research, the increase in the state of the state tobacco tax in most states, and the possibility of use of resources by basic settlement agreements are the development of coordinated initiatives based on state of youth tobacco. It is spurred. For the past decade, some State Health Bureau has implemented what is called "comprehensive tobacco prevention and management programs." These state programs adopt a variety of strategies to approach various subjects, incorporate multiple types of interventions in the region, state, and local levels, and try to have powerful policy elements. Comprehensive (Jacobson et al.) This kind of comprehensive tobacco countermeasure program "Best Practis" is compiled by the Diseases Prevention Center (CDC, 1999A). The following are recommended elements of the comprehensive program: (1) Interventions rooted in the community, (3) intervening in the school, (3) (3) (3) (3) 4) Media activities against marketing, (5) no n-smoking programs, (6) enforcement of existing laws and policies, (7) Intervention programs for chronic diseases caused by tobacco, (8) Surveyance and rating. Initiatives, (9) dedicated management and operation. The deeper understanding of local community intervention research, the increase in state tobacco tax in most states and the possibility of the use of resources through basic settlement agreements, spurred the development of coordinated initiatives based on state of youth tobacco. I'm wearing it. For the past decade, some State Health Bureau has implemented what is called "comprehensive tobacco prevention and management programs." These state programs adopt a variety of strategies to approach various subjects, incorporate multiple types of interventions in the region, state, and local levels, and try to have powerful policy elements. Comprehensive (Jacobson et al.) This kind of comprehensive tobacco countermeasure program "Best Practis" is compiled by the Diseases Prevention Center (CDC, 1999A). The following are recommended elements of the comprehensive program: (1) Interventions rooted in the community, (3) intervening in the school, (3) (3) (3) (3) 4) Media activities against marketing, (5) no n-smoking programs, (6) enforcement of existing laws and policies, (7) Intervention programs for chronic diseases caused by tobacco, (8) Surveyance and rating. Initiatives, (9) dedicated management and operation.

Many comprehensive state programs are in the early stages of development and implementation, but these comprehensive models have great potential for youth tobacco control if adequately funded and significantly strengthened. CDC developed components of the model based on the experiences of two states: California and Massachusetts. The California tobacco control program began in 1989 and was funded by Proposition 99, which increased the state cigarette tax from 10 cents to 35 cents. The goal of the program is to reduce tobacco use among youth and adults. The program has multiple components (which have changed somewhat over the years), including a large-scale, high-intensity mass media campaign with multiple themes and messages, investments in tobacco control capacity in local and city health departments, school-based interventions, numerous cessation activities, and other strategies targeted at identified subpopulations through a variety of channels. Recent efforts have focused on three main goals: (1) reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, (2) reducing adolescent exposure to tobacco, and (3) combating the precipitating effects of tobacco (Pierce et al., 1998; Jacobson et al., 2001).

The Massachusetts tobacco control program was also funded by an increase in the state tobacco excise tax passed in November 1992. A major component of the program is a statewide multimedia campaign that incorporates many themes and strategic messages. Other activities include telephone hotlines to assist with cessation, a tobacco education clearinghouse, technical assistance to build capacity in local health agencies and primary care facilities, school-based educational activities, and adolescent access control activities (Biener, 1999). More recently, Florida was able to strengthen its adolescent tobacco control efforts after receiving the first installment of a Medicaid lawsuit settlement with the tobacco industry. Florida's program includes a strong marketing component (including the "truth" campaign mentioned earlier). Other components include community engagement and funding for community-based activities, youth programs, enforcement of youth access laws, and strong evaluation efforts (Jacobson et al.).

There have been many analyses and evaluations of the comprehensive programs implemented in California, Massachusetts, and Florida, and a review of the findings to date is beyond the scope of this chapter. In summary, however, there is substantial evidence that these programs can affect tobacco use among adolescents and adults (Jacobson et al., 2001). Between 1995 and 1997, a time when youth smoking was increasing nationally, smoking rates among California youth declined by 12% (Independent Evaluation Consortium, 1998; Pierce et al.). During the first 9 years, the California program is estimated to have prevented more than 30, 000 tobacco-related heart disease deaths (Fichtenberg and Glantz, 2002). However, the evidence is not consistent that comprehensive efforts have had a significant impact on adolescents. Rohrbach et al. (2002) recently reported that in a randomized study of 10th graders in 84 schools, there was no association between exposure to components of the California tobacco control program and tobacco-related attitudes or behaviors. In Massachusetts, smoking rates among adults and adolescents declined after a comprehensive tobacco control program was implemented. Between 1992 and 1996, smoking per capita fell 19. 7% in Massachusetts, compared with a 6. 1% decline nationally (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996; Biener, 1999). Florida has also seen a remarkable decline in youth smoking. Over a one-year period (February 1998–February 1999), 30-day smoking prevalence among teenagers fell from 25. 2% to 20. 9%, with declines seen among both sexes and all ethnicities (Florida Department of Health, 2000). Analyses have shown that tax increases combined with other interventions result in greater declines in adolescent and adult smoking than price increases alone (Hu, Sung, and Keeler, 1995; Wakefield and Chaloupka, 2000). Lessons regarding the political nature of such programs have also been documented (Pierce et al., 1998; Balbach and Glantz, 1998; Siegel et al., 1997).

The most obvious conclusion from this review is that adolescent smoking prevention efforts have had mixed results and that there is no "magic bullet" in terms of adolescent tobacco control (Jacobson et al., 2001). As a result, the position that significant policy attention and resources should be directed toward adolescent smoking prevention is somewhat controversial. Some policy analysts have suggested that focusing on adolescents may actually be counterproductive and may make smoking more attractive to adolescents rather than making it less attractive (Glantz, 1996; Hill, 1999). Others have suggested that because primary prevention strategies have had limited success, efforts should instead be focused on secondary prevention, particularly interventions aimed at encouraging teens and young adults who smoke to quit. Still others have suggested that the most fruitful approach to tobacco control is to focus on smoking cessation interventions and smoking cessation policy interventions in adult populations (Hill, 1999). Jacobson et al. (2001) suggested that these different policy perspectives are not mutually exclusive and that multiple approaches can be implemented simultaneously, targeting both adolescents and adults and focusing on both primary and secondary prevention. Furthermore, many of these interventions have great potential for cost-effectiveness, as even modest intervention effects in adolescents can lead to substantial reductions in tobacco-related morbidity and mortality over the life course.

Here are some of the knowledge in the main field of youth cigarettes and the extensive suggestions for youth alcohol policy: First, it is clear that comprehensive programs, which are targeted at the state level, are important, including many initiatives adjusted at the state level. It is necessary to simultaneously implement many different strategies for individuals, family, organizations, local communities, and policy levels. As mentioned above, CDC recommends some important components in a comprehensive youth tobacco countermeasure program, all of which are similar to the efforts to reduce the number of minors. These components include a strong media campaign (aiming for some "core values") and a society that strives to strongly implement existing policies related to purchasing, holding, and using drugs. In the background, it includes effective intervention based on local communities and schools. In addition, goods taxes are considered to be very effective in reducing young people smoking, but they do not know the exact mechanism. Nevertheless, raising the price of tobacco by increasing the tax is now considered the key to youth tobacco countermeasures. The tobacco tax hike will have a more independent effect on other intervention measures that are implemented at the same time, and if the political situation permits, it can also be used as a financial resources to supply funds to other cigarettes. reference

There is no universal "comprehensive" tobacco countermeasure program. Each state is currently experimenting with various strategies at the state and regional levels. Regarding intervening at the school level, there are a number of ways to use social resistance models, recognize the importance of social backgrounds on attitudes and policies, and program booster throughout high schools. We know that it is necessary to meet the standards. These criteria also apply to interventions for alcohol and illegal drugs. In recent years, however, there have been concerns that some of the school interventions may not only have benign, but may also have the opposite and counterproductive effects. I will briefly describe some of the main fields of youth cigarettes and the extensive suggestions for alcohol policy of youth. First, it is clear that comprehensive programs, which are targeted at the state level, are important, including many initiatives adjusted at the state level. It is necessary to simultaneously implement many different strategies for individuals, family, organizations, local communities, and policy levels. As mentioned above, CDC recommends some important components in a comprehensive youth tobacco countermeasure program, all of which are similar to the efforts to reduce the number of minors. These components include a strong media campaign (aiming for some "core values") and a society that strives to strongly implement existing policies related to purchasing, holding, and using drugs. In the background, it includes effective intervention based on local communities and schools. In addition, goods taxes are considered to be very effective in reducing young people smoking, but they do not know the exact mechanism. Nevertheless, raising the price of tobacco by increasing the tax is now considered the key to youth tobacco countermeasures. The tobacco tax hike will have a more independent effect on other intervention measures that are implemented at the same time, and if the political situation permits, it can also be used as a financial resources to supply funds to other cigarettes. reference

There is no universal "comprehensive" tobacco countermeasure program. Each state is currently experimenting with various strategies at the state and regional levels. Regarding intervening at the school level, there are a number of ways to use social resistance models, recognize the importance of social backgrounds on attitudes and policies, and program booster throughout high schools. We know that it is necessary to meet the standards. These criteria also apply to interventions for alcohol and illegal drugs. In recent years, however, there have been concerns that some of the school interventions may not only have benign, but may also have the opposite and counterproductive effects. Here are some of the knowledge in the main field of youth cigarettes and the extensive suggestions for youth alcohol policy: First, it is clear that comprehensive programs, which are targeted at the state level, are important, including many initiatives adjusted at the state level. It is necessary to simultaneously implement many different strategies for individuals, family, organizations, local communities, and policy levels. As mentioned above, CDC recommends some important components in a comprehensive youth tobacco countermeasure program, all of which are similar to the efforts to reduce the number of minors. These components include a strong media campaign (aiming for some "core values") and a society that strives to strongly implement existing policies related to purchasing, holding, and using drugs. In the background, it includes effective intervention based on local communities and schools. In addition, goods taxes are considered to be very effective in reducing young people smoking, but they do not know the exact mechanism. Nevertheless, raising the price of tobacco by increasing the tax is now considered the key to youth tobacco countermeasures. The tobacco tax hike will have a more independent effect on other intervention measures that are implemented at the same time, and if the political situation permits, it can also be used as a financial resources for supplying funds to other cigarettes regulatory intervention measures. reference

It is not clear why this counterproductive effect occurs, but as a main hypothesis, youth uses cigarettes in schools, local communities and media while hearing negative things about smoking at school. It is often witnessed by people, and it is possible that hypocritical aura drifts around the intervention message. In addition, youth frequently receives the message that "you should not smoke because you are a child", and this message is likely to throw smoking as "adult behavior" and make smoking more attractive. There is also a hypothesis. The same, probably raised concerns, for schoo l-based alcoholic activities that throw drinking as adult behavior. Drinking alcohol is good for adults, but there are concerns that the message that it is not good for the age of 21 can be counterproductive. It is not clear why such a counterproductive effect occurs, but as a main hypothesis, youth hears negative things at school, while using cigarettes in homes, local communities and media. It is often witnessed by the person who is doing it, and it is possible that there is a hypocritical aura around the intervention message. In addition, youth frequently receives the message that "you should not smoke because you are a child", and this message is likely to throw smoking as "adult behavior" and make smoking more attractive. There is also a hypothesis. The same, probably raised concerns, for schoo l-based alcoholic activities that throw drinking as adult behavior. Drinking alcohol is good for adults, but there are concerns that the message that it is not good for the age of 21 can be counterproductive. It is not clear why this counterproductive effect occurs, but as a main hypothesis, youth uses cigarettes in schools, local communities and media while hearing negative things about smoking at school. It is often witnessed by people, and it is possible that hypocritical aura drifts around the intervention message. In addition, youth frequently receives the message that "you should not smoke because you are a child", and this message is likely to throw smoking as "adult behavior" and make smoking more attractive. There is also a hypothesis. The same, probably raised concerns, for schoo l-based alcoholic activities that throw drinking as adult behavior. Drinking alcohol is good for adults, but there are concerns that the message that it is not good for the age of 21 can be counterproductive.

Evidence of regulations, restrictions, and penalties for the acquisition of tobacco at the state and local level suggests that such policy efforts reduce illegal purchases of minors. As mentioned above, an important factor in the comprehensive cigarette regulation program is to implement regulations and policies. However, there is almost no evidence that the enforcement of the law on purchase, use, and possession has reduced access to cigarettes, and that the youth smoking behavior has decreased. In fact, the tobacco regulation community is increasingly calling for abandoning this kind of policy strategy and turning research and advocacy resources to means that it is likely to actually reduce tobacco use. To enact this kind of law and enforce it, time, energy, and funds are considerably required, and limited financial and human resources that can be used for cigarette regulations are consumed as unbearable. There is also a view that it will be made. However, there are opinions that such interventions should continue to be the focus of effort. These are important issues and arguments that youth alcohol policy experts should consider. It is clear that continuous efforts are needed to enforce the law on alcohol purchases at stores, bars, and restaurants by minors. But the problem is how much focus on this policy in a comprehensive alcohol policy. Evidence of regulations, restrictions, and penalties for the acquisition of tobacco at the state and local level suggests that such policy efforts reduce illegal purchases of minors. As mentioned above, an important factor in the comprehensive cigarette regulation program is to implement regulations and policies. However, there is almost no evidence that the enforcement of the law on purchase, use, and possession has reduced access to cigarettes, and that the youth smoking behavior has decreased. In fact, the tobacco regulation community is increasingly calling for abandoning this kind of policy strategy and turning research and advocacy resources to means that it is likely to actually reduce tobacco use. To enact this kind of law and enforce it, time, energy, and funds are considerably required, and limited financial and human resources that can be used for cigarette regulations are consumed as unbearable. There is also a view that it will be made. However, there are opinions that such interventions should continue to be the focus of effort. These are important issues and arguments that youth alcohol policy experts should consider. It is clear that continuous efforts are needed to enforce the law on alcohol purchases at stores, bars, and restaurants by minors. But the problem is how much focus on this policy in a comprehensive alcohol policy. Evidence of regulations, restrictions, and penalties for the acquisition of tobacco at the state and local level suggests that such policy efforts reduce illegal purchases of minors. As mentioned above, an important factor in the comprehensive cigarette regulation program is to implement regulations and policies. However, there is almost no evidence that the enforcement of the law on purchase, use, and possession has reduced access to cigarettes, and that the youth smoking behavior has decreased. In fact, the tobacco regulation community is increasingly calling for abandoning this kind of policy strategy and turning research and advocacy resources to means that it is likely to actually reduce tobacco use. To enact this kind of law and enforce it, time, energy, and funds are considerably required, and limited financial and human resources that can be used for cigarette regulations are consumed as unbearable. There is also a view that it will be made. However, there are opinions that such interventions should continue to be the focus of effort. These are important issues and arguments that youth alcohol policy experts should consider. It is clear that continuous efforts are needed to enforce the law on alcohol purchases at stores, bars, and restaurants by minors. But the problem is how much focus on this policy in a comprehensive alcohol policy.

Regarding media, there is evidence that industry marketing has influenced youth attitudes and behaviors on smoking, but the effects of advertising and advertising strategies are not clear at this time. In addition, a specific type of competing marketing campaign is being proved to have a significant and important impact on youth smoking. It is thought that a strong impression of a strong impression, incorporating a message pointing out that the industry is operating information regarding the effects of tobacco and smoking on health. However, it is not clear whether this kind of campaign can demonstrate a sustainable effect. Regarding youth alcohol prevention, it is not clear whether the campaign of the same type, that is, a campaign that includes a strict message on the deceptive and operable acts on the alcohol industry, can be implemented legally and behind the scenes. Alcohol messages (including the message of the campaign developed by the alcohol industry) is to drink with responsibility as an adult, but not to drink as a minor. By emphasizing that drinking is an "adult behavior", the campaign to reduce youth drinking is advertised as an adult choice, whether it is due to the industry or other people. It may take the same risk as the campaign to do. The impact is likely to be at best, but it may be counterproductive. Regarding the

Another important factor in the current tobacco regulation strategy (both youth and adults) is the promotion of no n-smoking spaces due to regulations at states and local levels. The important aspect of this kind of policy is to provide strong social clues and messages on social acceptance of smoking, and as a result, some of the messages that youth have obtained through schoo l-based and other types of intervention. Will be strengthened. Advocacy activities and research in this field are now considered an important factor in measures against youth tobacco. However, the role of this kind of policy activity in alcohol measures for youth is not very clear. Smoking smoking policies are considered to be very important because they affect social norms and social environments, but reduces exposure to sideline smoke (that is, the potential for smokers to no n-smokers. It can be used politically because it helps to reduce health threats. An obvious similarity in using alcohol is drunk driving. The policy of restricting alcohol to protect others from drunk driving threats is widely supported and politically acceptable. However, given that alcohol consumption is spreading into our society, many local communities are fully drinking adult drinking in restaurants and other public places (sports stadiums, hotels, airplanes, etc.). It is unlikely to be considered to be banned. In terms of homes that execute social norms, homes without alcohol will not spread as no n-smoking families. However, the policy of alcohol at home is that what alcohol is appropriate for the whole family to use and is considered acceptable, and what are the results of violating the home policy. You can tell whether it will occur. Another important factor in the current tobacco regulation strategy (both youth and adult) is the promotion of no n-smoking spaces due to regulations at states and local levels. The important aspect of this kind of policy is to provide strong social clues and messages on social acceptance of smoking, and as a result, some of the messages that youth have obtained through schoo l-based and other types of intervention. Will be strengthened. Advocacy activities and research in this field are now considered an important factor in measures against youth tobacco. However, the role of this kind of policy activity in alcohol measures for youth is not very clear. Smoking smoking policies are considered to be very important because they affect social norms and social environments, but reduces exposure to sideline smoke (that is, the potential for smokers to no n-smokers. It can be used politically because it helps to reduce health threats. An obvious similarity in using alcohol is drunk driving. The policy of restricting alcohol to protect others from drunk driving threats is widely supported and politically acceptable. However, given that alcohol consumption is spreading into our society, many local communities are fully drinking adult drinking in restaurants and other public places (sports stadiums, hotels, airplanes, etc.). It is unlikely to be considered to be banned. In terms of homes that execute social norms, homes without alcohol will not spread as no n-smoking families. However, the policy of alcohol at home is that what alcohol is appropriate for the whole family to use and is considered acceptable, and what are the results of violating the home policy. You can tell whether it will occur. Another important factor in the current tobacco regulation strategy (both youth and adults) is the promotion of no n-smoking spaces due to regulations at states and local levels. The important aspect of this kind of policy is to provide strong social clues and messages on social acceptance of smoking, and as a result, some of the messages that youth have obtained through schoo l-based and other types of intervention. Will be strengthened. Advocacy activities and research in this field are now considered an important factor in measures against youth tobacco. However, the role of this kind of policy activity in alcohol measures for youth is not very clear. Smoking smoking policies are considered to be very important because they affect social norms and social environments, but reduce exposure to sideline smoke (that is, the potential for smokers to no n-smokers. It can be used politically because it helps to reduce health threats. An obvious similarity in using alcohol is drunk driving. The policy of restricting alcohol to protect others from drunk driving threats is widely supported and politically acceptable. However, given that alcohol consumption is spreading into our society, many local communities are fully drinking adult drinking in restaurants and other public places (sports stadiums, hotels, airplanes, etc.). It is unlikely to be considered to be banned. In terms of homes that execute social norms, homes without alcohol will not spread as no n-smoking families. However, the policy of alcohol at home is that what alcohol is appropriate for the whole family to use and is considered acceptable, and what are the results of violating the home policy. You can tell whether it will occur.

As mentioned above, the tobacco countermeasures community is nervous about whether to focus on primary and secondary prevention. In the case of young people to protect tobacco, secondary prevention means clinical intervention in smoking cessation. By the time I became a high school student, many young people have not only tried smoking, but are already physiologically or psychologically poisoned. At this point, the message of cigarette use prevention is meaningless. Considering the cos t-effectiveness of no n-smoking intervention for adults and the fact that there are many poisoned youth, the no n-smoking program tailored to youth is considered an important part of the comprehensive tobacco countermeasures program. Nevertheless, there is a debate about how much this element should be emphasized compared to other factors. In addition, the research literature so far does not suggest that there are many ways to quit smoking for youth.

As with cigarettes, there is a tension between primary and secondary prevention for youth alcohol use. Alcohol is a habitual substance, and young people can abuse alcohol in the early stages of drinking, so secondary prevention includes clinical intervention in youth who has been diagnosed with drinking. Should be. However, youth who has not started drinking (primary prevention) and a young man who has already tried alcohol and has been drinking alcohol (I have drunk some alcohol in the past 30 days). It seems that the degree of appropriate relatives is more likely to be more tension. The relative emphasis on these two regions should be informed by the degree of success seen in primary and secondary prevention interventions. As mentioned earlier, some people have expressed a sense of defeat in the primary prevention of young people (tobacco regulations), so the more effective strategies are new methods for secondary prevention of youth and young adults. I think it is to concentrate on. As mentioned earlier, the cigarette countermeasures community is nervous about whether to focus on primary or secondary prevention. In the case of young people to protect tobacco, secondary prevention means clinical intervention in smoking cessation. By the time I became a high school student, many young people have not only tried smoking, but are already physiologically or psychologically poisoned. At this point, the message of cigarette use prevention is meaningless. Considering the cos t-effectiveness of no n-smoking intervention for adults and the fact that there are many poisoned youth, the no n-smoking program tailored to youth is considered an important part of the comprehensive tobacco countermeasures program. Nevertheless, there is a debate about how much this element should be emphasized compared to other factors. In addition, the research literature so far does not suggest that there are many ways to quit smoking for youth.

As with cigarettes, there is a tension between primary and secondary prevention for youth alcohol use. Alcohol is a habitual substance, and young people can abuse alcohol in the early stages of drinking, so secondary prevention includes clinical intervention in youth who has been diagnosed with drinking. Should be. However, youth who has not started drinking (primary prevention) and a young man who has already tried alcohol and has been drinking alcohol (I have drunk some alcohol in the past 30 days). It seems that the degree of appropriate relatives is more likely to be more tension. The relative emphasis on these two regions should be informed by the degree of success seen in primary and secondary prevention interventions. As mentioned earlier, some people have expressed a sense of defeat in the primary prevention of young people (tobacco regulations), so the more effective strategies are new methods for secondary prevention of youth and young adults. I think it is to concentrate on. As mentioned above, the tobacco countermeasures community is nervous about whether to focus on primary and secondary prevention. In the case of young people to protect tobacco, secondary prevention means clinical intervention in smoking cessation. By the time I became a high school student, many young people have not only tried smoking, but are already physiologically or psychologically poisoned. At this point, the message of cigarette use prevention is meaningless. Considering the cos t-effectiveness of no n-smoking intervention for adults and the fact that there are many poisoned youth, the no n-smoking program tailored to youth is considered an important part of the comprehensive tobacco countermeasures program. Nevertheless, there is a debate about how much this element should be emphasized compared to other factors. In addition, the research literature so far does not suggest that there are many ways to quit smoking for youth.

Youth smoking trends are frustrating for public health. There have clearly been ups and downs in the fight against youth tobacco use. However, youth smoking rates are alarmingly high at a time when the health hazards of smoking are widely accepted and understood, and when significant resources have already been invested in program and policy responses. The decline in smoking rates in recent years is indeed encouraging. Nonetheless, many policy makers, tobacco control experts, and public health advocates are taking a serious and critical look at where investments have been made and what these investments have delivered. As a result, as noted in this chapter, there is some consensus about the types of interventions that have the greatest potential, but there is disagreement about how best to invest limited human and financial resources going forward.

The tobacco control community has learned much from efforts in other areas of substance abuse, including youth alcohol control. Hopefully, some of the knowledge gained from continued and intensive efforts in youth smoking prevention - knowledge gained from intervention development and evaluation, other types of research, litigation, advocacy, and political struggles - will also be useful for youth alcohol policy.

Ahmed NU, Ahmed NS, Bennett CR, Hines JE. The impact of a drug abuse resistance education (D. A. R. E.) program in preventing smoking initiation among fifth and sixth graders. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002; 94 (4):249-256. [PMC free article : PMC2594221 ] [PubMed : 11991337 ].

The relationship between tobacco access and use. The relationship between tobacco access and use among adolescents: four community studies. Social Science and Medicine. 1999; 48 (6):759-775. [PubMed : 10190639]

Adolescent responses to tobacco advertising: Links among exposure, liking, dislike, and the attractiveness of smoking. Tobacco Control. 1998; 7 :129-133. [PMC free article : PMC1759675 ] [PubMed : 9789930 ].

Balbach ED, Glantz SA. Tobacco control advocates must demand quality media campaigns. Tobacco Control. 1998; 7 :397-408. [PMC free article : PMC1751438 ] [PubMed : 10093175 ].

Epidemiology of substance use in adolescents: drug and alcohol dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1999; 55 (3):187-207. [PubMed: 10428361].

Biener LW. Progress in reducing smoking in Massachusetts from 1993 to 1999. Boston: Survey Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston; 1999.

Biglan A, Ali D, Yudelson H, Duncan TE, Hood D, James L, Kane V, Wright Z, Black C, Levings D, Smith S, Geiser E. Experimental evaluation of a modular approach to mobilizing peer and parent anti-tobacco influence. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1996; 24 (3):311-339. [PubMed : 8864207 ].

Biglan A, Ali DV, Smoluchowski K, Duncan T, Black C. Oregon Research Institute Parenting Community Intervention Center; Eugene, OR: August 1999. A randomized controlled trial of a community intervention to prevent adolescent tobacco use. Unpublished dissertation.

Black DR, Tobler NS, Sciacca JP. Peer helping/engagement: an effective method of meeting the challenge of reducing adolescent alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use? Journal of School Health. 1998; 68 (3):87-93. [PubMed : 9608448 ].

Botvin GJ. Preventing substance abuse in schools: A social and competency-enhancing approach targeting individual-level etiological factors. Addictive Behaviors. 2000; 25 (6):887-897. [PubMed : 11125777 ].

Brown JH. Adolescents, drugs, and resilience education. Journal of Drug Education. 2001; 31 (1):83-122. [PubMed : 11338967 ].

Brownson RC, Ericksen MP, Davis RM, Warner KE. Environmental tobacco smoke: health effects and policies for reducing exposure. Annual Review of Public Health. 1997; 18 :163-185. [PubMed : 9143716 ]. ]

Bruvold WH. A meta-analysis of adolescent smoking prevention programs. American Journal of Public Health. 1993; 83 (6):872-880. [PMC free article : PMC1694752 ] [PubMed : 8498627 ].

Burt RD, Peterson AV. Smoking cessation among high school seniors. Preventive Medicine. 1998; 27 :319-327. PubMed : 9612822 ] [PubMed : 8498627 ] Burt RD.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1996; 45 (ss04):181-184.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs. Atlanta: Atlanta: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Smoking and Other Health Issues; 1999a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Use Prevention Curriculum and Evaluation Fact Sheet. 1999b. [Accessed October 2002). http://www . cdc. gov/nccdphp /dash/rtc/tob-curric. htm.

Prices, tobacco control policies, and youth smoking. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research; 1996. Working Paper No.

Chaloupka FJ, Warner KE. The economics of smoking. The economics of smoking: Newhouse JP, Cuyler A, editors. Handbook of health economics. New York: Elsevier; 2000.

Prices, tobacco control policies, and young adult smoking. Journal of Health Economics. 1997; 16 (3):359-373. [PubMed : 10169306 ].

Cook PJ, Moore MJ. The economics of alcohol abuse and alcohol control policies: price levels, including taxes, are effective in curbing alcohol consumption. Health Affairs. 2002; 21 (2):120-133. [PubMed : 11900152 ]. ］

What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine. 1995; 41 (12):1667-1676. [PubMed : 8746866 ].

Cummings KM, Hyland A, Pechacek TF, Orlandi M, Lin WR. A comparison of recent trends in smoking behavior and brand preferences among adolescents and adults. Tobacco Control. 1997; 6(Suppl 2):S31-S37. [PMC free article : PMC1766215 ] [PubMed : 9583650 ].

(1) Smokers' attitudes toward smoking and their behavior, (2) Smokers' attitudes toward smoking and their behavior. Working Paper, School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology; 1998. Comments on DeCicca, Kenkel and Mathios.

DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, Wolf-Gillespie W, Fletcher C, Jaffe RD, Murray D. RJR Nabisco camel cartoons promote Camel cigarettes to children. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1991; 266 :3149-3153. [PubMed : 1956102 ].

Erickson P, Bell R. Drug abuse prevention in middle schools: A multisite longitudinal test. Science. 1990; 247 :1299-1305. [PubMed : 2180065]

Long-term evaluation of drug abuse resistance education. Long-term evaluation of drug abuse resistance education. Addictive Behaviors. 1994; 19 :113-125. [PubMed : 8036959 ].

Farrelly MC, Bray JW. Office on Smoking and Health. Responses to tobacco price increases by race/ethnicity, income, and age groups in the United States, 1976-1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1998; 47 (29):605-609. [PubMed : 9699809 ].

Farrelly MC, Healton CH, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hershey JC, Haviland M Lyndon. Getting to the truth: An evaluation of a national tobacco countermarketing campaign. American Journal of Public Health. 2002a; 92 (6):901-907. [PMC free article: PMC1447480 ] [PubMed: 12036775 ].

Future direction of Farely MC, Needor Deppe J, tobacco Mass media campaign; unpublished dissertation published at the Innovations in Youth Tobacco Control Conference; Santafe, Kishiko. JULY, 2002b.

Looking at tobacco, what you want, and owning: The relationship between young people's reception and smoking sensitivity. Tobacco Control. 1998; 7: 123-128.

Fichitemberg CM, Grantz SA. Youth access intervention does not affect young people smoking. Pediatrics. 2002; 109 (6): 1088-1092. [Pubmed: 12042547].

Psychological social forecasting factor at different stages of smoking of Frey BR, Foo FB, Richardson J. High School Students. Preventive medicine. 1998; 27: A9-A18. [Pubmed: 9808813]

Florida Health Bureau tobacco Countermeasures Office. Report on the progress of the tobacco and pilot programs. Unpuned on March 17, 2000, inside the company.

FORSTER JL, WOLFSON M. Youth access to cigarettes: Policy and politics. Annual Review of Public Health. 1998; 19: 203-235. [PUBMED: 9611618]. ]

Gilpin EA, Pierce JP. Tendency of the start of puberty smoking in the United States: Is the marketing of cigarettes affected? Cigarette control. 1997; 6 (2): 122-127. [PMC Free Article: PMC1759547] [Pubmed: 9291221].

Giovino Ga. Epidemiology for tobacco in US youth. Research on nicotine and tobacco. 1999; 1 (Supp 1): 40-41. [Pubmed: 11072402].

Glantz Sa. Editorial: Prevents the use of cigarettes. A young access trap. American public health journal. 1996; 86 (2): 1156-1158. [PMC free article: PMC1380318] [PUBMED: 8633727].

Glantz Sa. Restaurant no n-smoking ordinance does not affect restaurants. Public health management and practice journal. 1999; 5 (1): VI-IX. [Pubmed: 10345506].

Tourism and hotel income before and after the establishment of the No n-Smoking Restaurant Ordinance. US Medical Association magazine. 1999; 281 (20): 1911-1998. [Pubmed: 10349895]. ]

Social impact of Horeson G. Life Education: Estimating dru g-use disease rate in elementary school students in Victoria and the entire state of life education programs. Addiction. 1996; 91: 1151-1159. [Pubmed: 8828243].

Hill D. Why we need to work on adult smoking first. Tobacco control. 1999; 8: 333-335. [PMC free article: PMC1763962] [PUBMED: 10599580].

Hu TW, Sung HY, Keeler TE. Reducing tobacco consumption in California: tobacco taxes versus antismoking media campaigns. American Journal of Public Health. 1995; 85 :1218-1222. [PMC free article : PMC1615589 ] [PubMed : 7661228 ].

101 adolescents treated with nicotine patch therapy. Nicotine patch therapy in 101 adolescent smokers: Efficacy, relief of withdrawal symptoms, and carbon monoxide and plasma cotinine concentrations. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2000; 154 (1):31-37. [PubMed : 10632247 ].

Independent Evaluation Consortium. Final report of an independent evaluation of the California Tobacco Control Prevention Education Program: First wave of data, 1996-1997. Rockville, MD: Gallup Organization; 1998.

Institute of Medicine. Growing up tobacco free: Preventing nicotine addiction in children and adolescents. Washington, DC: 1994. [PubMed : 25144107].

Israel BA, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. A review of community-based research: Evaluating partnership approaches to improving public health. Annual Review of Public Health. 1998; 19 :173-202. [PubMed : 9611617]. ].

Jacobson PD, Lantz PM, Warner KE, Wasserman J, Pollack HA, Ahlstrom AK. Combating teen smoking: research and policy strategies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2001.

Jacobson PD, Wasserman J. Tobacco control laws: implementation and enforcement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 1997. [PubMed : 10386327 ].

Johnson PB, Boles SM, Vaughan R, Kleber HD. Co-occurrence of smoking and binge drinking among adolescents. Addictive Behaviors. 2000; 25 (5):779-783. [PubMed : 11023019 ].

Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. National Survey of Drug Use, 1975-2000. Volume II: College Students and Adults Ages 19-40. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2001. NIH Publication No. 01-4925.

Essays against punishing adolescents for possession of tobacco products. GASP, Colorado Education Library. March 27, 1998. http://www . gaspforair . org/gedc/gedcyout. htm.

Lantz PM. Smoking on rise among young adults: Implications for research and policy; Unpublished manuscript presented at Innovations in Youth Tobacco Control Conference; Santa Fe, NM. July 2002. [PMC free article : PMC1766087 ] [PubMed : 12773786 ].

Lantz PM, Jacobson PD, Warner KE, Wasserman J, Pollack HA, Berson J, Ahlstrom A. Investing in youth tobacco control: a review of smoking prevention and control strategies. Tobacco Control. 2000 March; 9 :47-63. [PMC free article : PMC1748282 ] [PubMed : 10691758 ].

Using tobacco industry marketing research to design more effective tobacco control campaigns. Tobacco Control. 1997; 6 (Suppl 2):S17-24. [PMC free article : PMC1766216 ] [PubMed : 9583648 ].

Li Ling PM, Glantz SA. Using tobacco industry marketing research to design more effective tobacco control campaigns. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002; 287 (22):2983-2989. [PubMed : 12052128 ].

Smokng PLOT Bll Contnue to Be Center of Attenton n Atlantc Cty

Ling PM, Landman A, Glantz SA. Time to abandon youth access tobacco programs. Tobacco Control. 2002; 1 (1):3-6. [PMC free article : PMC1747643 ] [PubMed : 11891349 ].

Lynan DR, Milich R, Zimmerman R, Novak SP, Logan TK, Martin C, Leukefeld C, Clayton R. Project DARE: no effect at 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1999; 67 :490-593. [PubMed : 10450631 ].

Mermelstein R. Innovative approaches to youth tobacco control: Teen smoking cessation; unpublished manuscript presented at the Innovations in Youth Tobacco Control Conference; Santa Fe, NM. July 2002.

Monitoring the Future website, August 30, 2002. http://monitoringthefuture. org.

School smoking policies and adolescent smoking prevalence: A multilevel analysis of cross-sectional data from Wales. Tobacco Control. 2001; 10 :117-123. [PMC free article : PMC1747541 ] [PubMed : 11387531 ].

Atlantic City Information

Novelli WD. Quit smoking, buy a Marlboro. British Medical Journal. 1999; 318 :1296. [PMC free article : PMC1115680 ] [PubMed : 10231290 ].

Pentz MA, Brannon BR, Cherlin VL, Barrett EJ, MacKinnon DP, Flay BR. The power of policy: The relationship between smoking policy and adolescent smoking. American Journal of Public Health. 1989a; 79 :857-862. [PMC free article : PMC1349666 ] [PubMed : 2735472 ].

Pentz MA, MacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH, Wang EY, Hansen WB, Flay BR, Johnson CA. Longitudinal effects of the Midwest Prevention Project on regular and experimental smoking among adolescents. Preventive Medicine. 1989b; 18 :304-321. [PubMed : 2740299 ]. ]

Pentz MA, MacKinnon DP, Flay BR, Hansen WB, Johnson CA, Dwyer JH. Primary prevention of chronic disease in adolescents: Effects of the Midwest Prevention Project on tobacco use. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1989c; 130 :713-724. [PubMed : 2788994 ].

Perry CL. Smoking of the tobacco industry and minors: tobacco industrial documents in Minnesota Litigation. Pediatrics and youth medicine. 1999; 153: 935-941. [Pubmed: 10482208]. ]

Perry CL, Kelder SH, Malay DM, Klepp KI. Prevention of smoking in the whole area: Lon g-term results of Minnesota heart health program and 1989 class research. American Journal of Public Health. 1992; 82 (9): 1210-1216.

Peterson A, Keyley K, Man S, Malek P, Sarathon I. Hachiison smoking prevention project: Lon g-term randomization test in schoo l-based tobacco use. American Cancer Institute of Cancer Institute. 2000; 92: 1979-1991. [Pubmed: 11121460]. ]

Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, CHOI WS. Division of responsibility: Future smoking mortality due to smoking experiments and Joe Camel and Marlboro advertising and advertising. Tobacco control. 1999; 8: 37-44. [PMC free article: PMC1763932] [Pubmed: 10465814].

New Jersey Gaming News

Is California cigarette measures effective? Did the California tobacco regulation program reduce smoking? Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998; 280: 893-899. [Pubmed: 9739973].

Pinilla J, Gonzalez B, Barber P, Santana Y. Smoking of young youth: Approach by mult i-level discrete selection model. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2002; 56: 227-232. [PMC Free Article: PMC1732090]

Characteristics of sales promotion in tobacco magazine advertisements (1980-1993): Analysis of youth exposure in the United States. Tobacco control. 1999; 8 (1): 29-36. [PMC free article: PMC1763919] [Pubmed: 10465813].

Richter L, Richter DM. Exposure to the use of parent tobacco and alcohol: Child health and effect on development. American shaped psychiatrist journal. 2001; 71 (2): 182-203. [Pubmed: 11347360].

The effect of the enforcement of the cigarette sales law on the youth tobacco and smoking behavior. New England Medicine Journal. 1997; 337: 1044-1051. [Pubmed: 9321533].

ROHRBACH LA, HOWARD-PITNEY B, UNGER JB, DENT CW, CRUZ TB, Ribisl Km, Norman GJ, Fishbein H, Johnson Ca. 6-1998 exposure to program Relationship with outcom. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 (6): 975-983.

Stockton Atlantic City Summer Experience: Live-Work-Learn

National Gaming News

Rust L. Anti-tobacco advertising: lessons for the commercial world. Nicotine and Tobacco Marketing. 1999; 1(Suppl):1-89. [PubC:11072410]

Saffer H, Chaloupka F. Tobacco advertising: economic theory and international evidence. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research; Feb, 1999. Working Paper No.

Schooler C, Feighery E, Flora JA. The relationship between self-reported exposure to tobacco marketing and smoking behavior among seventh graders. American Journal of Public Health. 1996; 86 :1216-2121. [PMC free article: PMC1380582] [PubMed:8806371].

Siegel M, Carroll J, Jordan J, Hobart R, Schoenmarklinn S, DuMelle F, Fisher P. Getting ahead in tobacco control: a review of an emerging public health problem. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997 Sep; 278 (10):858-863. [PubMed : 9293996 ]. ]

Smith TA, House RF Jr, Croghan IT, Gauvin TR, Colligan RC, Offord KP. Nicotine patch therapy in adolescent smokers. Pediatrics. 1996; 98 (4 Pt 1):659-667. [PubMed : 8885942 ].

Spoth RL, Redmond C, Shin C. A randomized trial of a brief family intervention in a general population: adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years after baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001; 69 (4):627-642. [PubMed : 11550729 ].

Hospitality & Tourism News

Stead LF, Lancaster R. A systematic review of interventions to prevent tobacco sales to minors. Tobacco Control. 2000; 9 (2):169-176. [PMC free article : PMC1748321 ] [PubMed : 10841853 ].

Effects of 66 adolescent clinical trials and 17 prospective studies of tobacco cessation. Tobacco Induced Disease. 2002; 1 (1):35-81. [PMC free article : PMC2671530 ] [PubMed : 19570247 ].

Unger JB, Johnson CA, Roebuck LA. Awareness and liking of tobacco and alcohol advertising among adolescents: Relationship to susceptibility to substance use. Preventive Medicine. 1995; 24 (5):461-466. [PubMed : 8524720 ].

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among adolescents: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Atlanta: Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1994.

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programs in reducing teen smoking in the United States. Tobacco Control. 2000; 9 (2):177-186. [PMC free article : PMC1748334 ] [PubMed : 10841854 ].

Wakefield MA, Chaloupka FJ, Kaufman NJ, Orleans CT, Barker DC, Ruel E. The effects of smoking restrictions at home, school, and public places on teen smoking: a cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal. 2000 August; 321 :333-337. [PMC free article : PMC27448 ] [PubMed : 10926588 ]. Teenage penalties for tobacco possession, use, and purchase: Unpublished manuscript presented at the Innovations in Youth Tobacco Control Conference. July 2002. [PMC free article : PMC1766089 ] [PubMed : 12773781 ].

Effects of tobacco taxes and restrictions. Effects of excise taxes and restrictions on adult and teen smoking. Journal of Health Economics. 1991; 10 :43-64. [PubMed : 10112149 ]. ]

Wechsler H, Kelly K, Seibring M, Kuo M, Ligotti NA. College smoking policies and smoking cessation programs: Results of a survey of college health center directors. Journal of American College of Health. 2001; 49 (5):1-8. [PubMed : 11337895 ]. ]

Youth Smoking Prevention Policy Lessons Learned and Continuing Challenges Reducing Underage

Bookshelf

Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility.

16 Youth Smoking Prevention Policy: Lessons Learned and Continuing Challenges

RECENT TRENDS IN SMOKING AMONG YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS

FIGURE 16-1

MAJOR YOUTH TOBACCO CONTROL STRATEGIES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

School-Based Educational Interventions

Regulation, Restrictions, and Penalties Regarding Youth Access to Tobacco

Penalties for Youth Possession, Use, and Purchase

Tobacco Advertising Restrictions and Mass Media Counter-Marketing Campaigns

Tobacco Advertising Restrictions

Mass Media Counter-Marketing Campaigns

Tobacco Excise Taxes

Smoke-Free Space Policies

Smoking Cessation Interventions

The Case for Community Interventions and Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs

DISCUSSION: LESSONS FOR YOUTH ALCOHOL POLICY

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

Smokng PLOT Bll Contnue to Be Center of Attenton n Atlantc Cty

Atlantic City Information

New Jersey Gaming News

Stockton Atlantic City Summer Experience: Live-Work-Learn

National Gaming News

Hospitality & Tourism News

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

Recommended Reading

Your Smartphone Reduces Your Brainpower, Even If It's Just Sitting There

How I Demolished My Life

Why Self-Compassion Works Better Than Self-Esteem