Loose Cigarette Purchasing and Nondaily Smoking Among Young Adult Bar Patrons in New York City

Objectives. We examined loose cigarette (loosie) purchasing behavior among young adult (aged 18–26 years) smokers at bars in New York City and factors associated with purchase and use.Methods. Between June and December 2013, we conducted cross-sectional surveys (n = 1916) in randomly selected bars and nightclubs. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we examined associations of loose cigarette purchasing and use with smoking frequency, price, social norms, cessation behaviors, and demographics.Results. Forty-five percent (n = 621) of nondaily smokers and 57% (n = 133) of daily smokers had ever purchased a loosie; 15% of nondaily smokers and 4% of daily smokers reported that their last cigarette was a loosie. Nondaily smokers who never smoked daily were more likely than were daily smokers to have last smoked a loosie (odds ratio = 7.27; 95% confidence interval = 2.35, 22.48). Quitting behaviors and perceived approval of smoking were associated with ever purchasing and recently smoking loosies.Conclusions. Loosie purchase and use is common among young adults, especially nondaily smokers. Smoking patterns and attitudes should be considered to reduce loose cigarette purchasing among young adults in New York City.Widespread adoption of clean indoor air laws and cigarette tax increases denormalize smoking behavior1 and decrease smoking rates.2,3 Although increasing taxes is one of the most effective means of smoking prevention and reduction,3 the increased price of cigarettes can also lead to tax-avoidant behaviors, such as buying untaxed packs smuggled from states with lower cigarette taxes and purchasing loose cigarettes, or “loosies.”4–6 In New York City (NYC), where a cigarette pack costs about $11.50, it has become common for smokers to purchase discounted packs and individual cigarettes from street peddlers and friends.7,8Much of the research exploring loosie purchasing in the United States has focused on underage or low-income minority populations, often in urban areas.7,9,10 One study found that in early 1993, 70% of stores in central Harlem sold loosies to minors.7 Another study conducted with a 2005–2006 convenience sample in inner-city Baltimore found that 77% of African American smokers aged 18 to 24 years had purchased loosies in the past month.11 Similarly, loosie purchasing in Mexico was more common among younger smokers with lower incomes.12Availability and visibility of loosies can promote smoking and encourage relapse.13 We defined nondaily smokers as those who smoked on 1 to 29 of the past 30 days.14,15 Shiffman et al. found that nondaily smokers were more likely than daily smokers to report that social and environmental stimuli motivated their smoking behavior.16 More specifically, cues such as taste, smell, social goading to smoke, and specific situations (e.g., smoking after meals) are more likely to be reported as motivators to smoke by nondaily smokers than by daily smokers.16 Because social–environmental cues have substantial impact on nondaily smokers’ motivation to smoke, it is likely that the cue of seeing loosies in one’s environment also motivates nondaily smokers to smoke.16Previous research substantiates this claim, with 1 study showing that people who regularly saw loosies available for purchase were more likely to be current smokers.17 Therefore, the widespread availability of loosies may have a greater impact on nondaily smokers. Nondaily smokers make up a third of US smokers,18,19 and nondaily smoking is increasingly common among young adults.20 Many young adults who smoke on only some days do not self-identify as smokers,21 and nondaily smoking is frequently paired with alcohol consumption.22–24 Nondaily and light smoking carry a lower, but substantial, risk for lung cancer and a similar risk as does daily smoking for cardiovascular disease.25–27 Occasional smokers also have higher smoking-related morbidity and mortality than do people who have never smoked.26,28–30Nondaily smoking can be a long-term behavior pattern31,32 or a transition to or from daily smoking.31 Nondaily smokers include different subgroups that may have very different smoking patterns or motivations to quit.33,34 Nondaily smokers who previously smoked daily have been defined in previous research as converted nondaily smokers. Nondaily smokers who have never smoked daily are defined as native nondaily smokers.18,19 Important differences exist between these subgroups of smokers: converted nondaily smokers are more likely to quit smoking than are native nondaily smokers and daily smokers,18,19 although most converted and native nondaily smokers were unable to remain abstinent for more than 90 days.19Loosie purchasing and use may play an important role in promoting continued tobacco use among nondaily smokers. The 2010 NYC Community Health Survey35 found that more than one third (34%) of young adult nondaily smokers (aged 18–26 years) reported that their last cigarette smoked was a loosie, compared with 14% of young adult daily smokers. Another study of NYC adults demonstrated that nondaily smokers were more likely to purchase loose cigarettes than were light and heavy smokers.36 To the best of our knowledge, little is known about the factors associated with loosie purchasing among nondaily smokers in the United States.We sought to better understand the factors associated with loosie purchasing among NYC young adults, specifically to determine (1) loosie purchase and use rates among converted nondaily, native nondaily, and daily smokers; (2) whether loosie purchase or use are associated with perceived social norms of smoking behavior; and (3) whether loosie purchasing is associated with smoking cessation intention or behavior.     

Associations Between Health Literacy and Established Predictors of Smoking Cessation

Objectives. We examined associations between health literacy and predictors of smoking cessation among 402 low-socioeconomic status (SES), racially/ethnically diverse smokers.Methods. Data were collected as part of a larger study evaluating smoking health risk messages. We conducted multiple linear regression analyses to examine relations between health literacy and predictors of smoking cessation (i.e., nicotine dependence, smoking outcome expectancies, smoking risk perceptions and knowledge, self-efficacy, intentions to quit or reduce smoking).Results. Lower health literacy was associated with higher nicotine dependence, more positive and less negative smoking outcome expectancies, less knowledge about smoking health risks, and lower risk perceptions. Associations remained significant (P < .05) after controlling for demographics and SES-related factors.Conclusions. These results provide the first evidence that low health literacy may serve as a critical and independent risk factor for poor cessation outcomes among low-socioeconomic status, racially/ethnically diverse smokers. Research is needed to investigate potential mechanisms underlying this relationship.Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States.1 Approximately one third of all US cancer-related deaths and 87% of lung cancer cases result from smoking,2 and smoking contributes to 80% to 90% of lung cancer deaths each year.3 Although smoking prevalence has declined in recent years, nearly 21% of US adults continue to smoke.4 Distinct populations such as those with low education, income, and occupational status and racial/ethnic minorities have disproportionately high smoking rates.5–8 Individuals from these populations are also less likely to successfully quit smoking because they have limited access to effective smoking cessation resources and are less likely to use such resources.9–11 Thus, smoking has a striking impact on socioeconomic status (SES) and racial/ethnic disparities in cancer morbidity and mortality.10–13Numerous key predictors of smoking cessation and maintenance have been identified in previous research. One of the most robust predictors is nicotine dependence (i.e., average number of cigarettes smoked per day, time to first cigarette on waking).14–16 Smokers with higher levels of dependence are less likely to quit smoking and less likely to maintain abstinence.14–16 Smoking outcome expectancies, or the beliefs that smokers have about the consequences of smoking, also predict cessation.17 Smoking expectancies can be positive (e.g., smoking facilitates social interactions, smoking reduces boredom or negative affect) or negative (e.g., smoking is harmful to health, others might disapprove of smoking). Stronger negative outcome expectancies are associated with greater intentions to quit and better cessation outcomes.18 Smoking health risk knowledge and risk perceptions are also associated with smoking cessation such that lower perceived vulnerability and fewer perceived smoking risks are negatively associated with abstinence.19,20 Moreover, quitting self-efficacy (i.e., the confidence in one’s ability to quit smoking)21,22 and intention to quit smoking predict successful cessation outcomes.15,23,24Poor health literacy is one factor that may be negatively associated with cessation outcomes, particularly for low-SES racial/ethnic minority populations. However, very little research has examined health literacy as an independent predictor of smoking initiation or poor cessation outcomes. Health literacy is the ability to obtain, understand, and use health information to make important decisions regarding health and medical care.25 Nearly half of US adults have poor health literacy.26 Racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower educational attainment, income, and employment status are more likely to have difficulty with health literacy.27–31 Specifically, two thirds of African American adults and three fourths of Latino adults have limited health literacy, compared with 32% of non-Latino Whites.32 Poor health literacy is associated with higher incidence of chronic illness (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) and more limited access to prevention and treatment programs.33 Those with poor health literacy tend to engage in harmful health behaviors (e.g., poor medication adherence, less preventive care utilization, less cancer screening) and are more likely to report poor health status.34–36 They also have low levels of illness-related knowledge.31,35,37,38 Furthermore, individuals with low health literacy are less likely to be screened for cancer and are more frequently diagnosed with advanced-stage cancers.35,39 Low health literacy is also associated with higher overall mortality rates.40–42Whereas associations between low health literacy, negative health behaviors, and poor health outcomes have been well documented,35 few studies have examined potential associations between health literacy and smoking. Sudore et al.30 reported that elderly participants with lower health literacy were more likely to endorse current smoking status. However, Baker et al.40 found no such association in a different sample of elderly persons. Another study found no relationship between health literacy and smoking status in a sample of low-income pregnant women; however, poor health literacy was found to be associated with lower smoking risk knowledge and fewer negative smoking-related attitudes.43 A more recent study found that health literacy was not significantly associated with cessation outcomes after completion of an inpatient smoking cessation program.44 Notably, this study had a very small sample size, and most participants had adequate health literacy. Thus, there is a critical need to better understand how health literacy may be linked with smoking prevalence and cessation, particularly in large samples of low-SES, racial/ethnic minority smokers, because health literacy may be an essential, but often overlooked, factor in understanding tobacco-related health disparities.We investigated associations between health literacy and established predictors of cessation (i.e., nicotine dependence, smoking outcome expectancies, smoking health risk knowledge and risk perceptions, self-efficacy to quit smoking, and intentions to quit or reduce smoking). The data were collected as part of a larger, single-visit laboratory study (Project INFORM) that evaluated responses to different types of smoking health risk messages among smokers with different levels of health literacy. On the basis of the existing literature, we hypothesized that smokers with lower (vs higher) health literacy would be more nicotine dependent, have more positive and fewer negative smoking outcome expectancies, have lower perceptions of smoking-related risk, be less knowledgeable about the health consequences of smoking, and have lower self-efficacy to quit smoking, and weaker intentions to change their smoking behavior.     

Impact of Alcohol Use and Bar Attendance on Smoking and Quit Attempts Among Young Adult Bar Patrons

Objectives. We examined cigarette smoking and quit attempts in the context of alcohol use and bar attendance among young adult bar patrons with different smoking patterns.Methods. We used randomized time location sampling to collect data among adult bar patrons aged 21 to 26 years in San Diego, California (n = 1235; response rate = 73%). We used multinomial and multivariate logistic regression models to analyze the association between smoking and quit attempts and both drinking and binge drinking among occasional, regular, very light, and heavier smokers, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education.Results. Young adult bar patrons reported high rates of smoking and co-use of cigarettes and alcohol. Binge drinking predicted smoking status, especially occasional and very light smoking. All types of smokers reported alcohol use, and bar attendance made it harder to quit. Alcohol use was negatively associated with quit attempts for very light smokers, but positively associated with quitting among heavier smokers.Conclusions. Smoking and co-use of cigarettes and alcohol are common among young adult bar patrons, but there are important differences by smoking patterns. Tobacco interventions for young adults should prioritize bars and address alcohol use.Tobacco is responsible for approximately 443 000 deaths in the United States annually,1,2 but cessation before the age of 30 years avoids most of the long-term health consequences of smoking.3 As smoking prevalence has declined,4 nondaily smoking and low-level daily cigarette consumption,5–7 also referred to as occasional or light smoking patterns, have increased.8–11 Nondaily smokers made up 4.1% of the US adult population in 2006,12 increasing from 3.2% in 1997 and 1998.6 Nondaily smokers accounted for 19.9% of current smokers in 2006,12 increasing from 16.0% in 1997 and 1998.6 Younger age is associated with occasional smoking,9,13 and nondaily smoking is common among young adults. In 1997 and 1998, 5.5% of young adults aged 18 to 24 years were nondaily smokers, accounting for 19.9% of young adult smokers, the highest proportion of nondaily smoking among all age groups.6Alcohol complicates occasional or light smoking in young adults, and it often plays a powerful catalyst role in facilitating and maintaining smoking.14 Young adults report that alcohol increases the enjoyment of and desire for cigarettes,15,16 and tobacco enhances the desired effect of alcohol.17–19 The co-use of cigarettes and alcohol has been described as like “milk and cookies” or “peanut butter with jelly.”20The co-use of tobacco and alcohol among young adults15,21,22 poses a serious health threat. Use of both cigarettes and alcohol increases the risk for certain cancers (e.g., mouth, throat, esophagus, upper aerodigestive tract)23–25 and makes it more difficult to quit either substance.26–28 In a 2001–2002 national study, 2.9% of adults aged 18 years and older (6.2 million) reported both alcohol use disorders and a dependence on nicotine by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria, and young adults aged 18 to 24 years exhibited the highest rates of this comorbidity.22Bars and nightclubs are key public venues where young adults congregate and use both alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco companies have targeted young adults, using entertaining events to reinforce a smoker-friendly atmosphere in bars and nightclubs.16,29–31 Many tobacco marketing events have encouraged alcohol use by offering alcohol discounts, paraphernalia, or by holding alcohol drinking contests.16,29,30,32 The strong rewarding effects of nicotine paired with alcohol,33–35 the aggressive tobacco marketing linked with alcohol,32 and the peer acceptance of smoking while drinking at parties in bars and nightclubs20 have put young adult bar patrons at high risk for tobacco use and co-use of tobacco and alcohol, even for occasional and light smokers.To our knowledge, no study has examined the co-use of tobacco and alcohol among young adult bar patrons. This is a hard-to-reach population often underrepresented in national surveillance studies. Additionally, no study has assessed co-use behavior among young adult occasional and light smokers, an increasingly common behavior. We examined patterns of smoking and quit attempts in the context of alcohol use and bar attendance among 4 groups of young adult smokers attending bars in San Diego, California, including occasional, regular, very light, and heavier smokers.     

Tobacco use harm reduction, elimination, and escalation in a large military cohort

Objectives. We evaluated changing patterns of tobacco use following a period of forced tobacco abstinence in a US military cohort to determine rates of harm elimination (e.g., tobacco cessation), harm reduction (e.g., from smoking to smokeless tobacco use), and harm escalation (e.g., from smoking to dual use or from smokeless tobacco use to smoking or dual use).Methods. Participants were 5225 Air Force airmen assigned to the health education control condition in a smoking cessation and prevention trial. Tobacco use was assessed by self-report at baseline and 12 months.Results. Among 114 baseline smokers initiating smokeless tobacco use after basic military training, most demonstrated harm escalation (87%), which was 5.4 times more likely to occur than was harm reduction (e.g., smoking to smokeless tobacco use). Harm reduction was predicted, in part, by higher family income and belief that switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco is beneficial to health. Harm escalation predictors included younger age, alcohol use, longer smoking history, and risk-taking.Conclusions. When considering a harm reduction strategy with smokeless tobacco, the tobacco control community should balance anticipated benefits of harm reduction with the risk of harm escalation and the potential for adversely affecting public health.Cigarette smoking is the number 1 preventable cause of death and disability in the United States.^1,2 Although a vast array of smoking cessation strategies exist,³ nearly 20% of the US population are current smokers.⁴ Impeding efforts for a tobacco-free society are the facts that nicotine is highly addictive⁵ and, at any given time, only about 20% of smokers are ready, willing, or able to make a serious attempt to stop smoking.⁶ Although research efforts are under way to evaluate the efficacy of approaches for smokers not ready or able to quit (e.g., motivational interviewing),⁷ no method has demonstrated success.An alternative approach to providing treatment to smokers unable to quit is to “reduce the harm” associated with cigarette smoking.⁸ Proposed harm reduction strategies have included risk factor modification (e.g., dietary intake and physical activity) and chemoprevention strategies (e.g., antioxidants).⁹ However, the most controversial method of harm reduction is encouraging smokers to switch from cigarette smoking to other forms of tobacco, such as smokeless tobacco,^10,11 a known human carcinogen.^12,13Although switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco reduces risk related to heart disease and lung cancer,^14,15 critics of this strategy suggest that harm reduction may be associated with unintended consequences. A recent review by Tomar et al. concluded that the effectiveness of smokeless tobacco as a smoking-cessation strategy remains unknown and that available evidence suggests that smokeless tobacco use may be a gateway to smoking initiation in the United States.¹⁶ Furthermore, promoting smokeless tobacco for harm reduction has the potential to increase harm by opening the door to dual use of cigarettes and ST, with the latter used in venues where smoking is prohibited; this could undermine cessation attempts.^16,17 In the INTERHEART study, an international case–control study, dual use (i.e., concomitant use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) was associated with higher odds for acute myocardial infarction than was cigarette smoking alone.¹⁸ Finally, it is important to point out that, although switching from cigarette smoking to smokeless tobacco is safer than smoking cigarettes, smokeless tobacco is still far from safe.^12,13Proponents of harm reduction claim that for cigarette smokers who find complete smoking cessation an unobtainable goal, reducing harm through use of alternative nicotine sources with fewer health risks is better than continuing to smoke. These advocates often cite Sweden''s promotion of the smokeless product “snus” as an example of effective harm reduction.¹⁹ Swedish snus use has been linked to a decrease in smoking prevalence and a net population health benefit.^20,21 However, available data suggest that the Swedish and US populations behave differently.²² Specifically, both US male and female smokers have higher quit rates than in Sweden despite the higher rate of snus use in Sweden. Analysis of data in populations with high rates of tobacco use (both cigarettes and smokeless tobacco), such as the US military,²³ may provide additional information regarding the behavior of US tobacco users.We explored tobacco use patterns in a large military cohort from basic military training to 12-month follow-up. During basic military training, all tobacco use is forbidden (a well-enforced prohibition) for a 6-week period; therefore, smokers and smokeless tobacco users undergo forced tobacco abstinence. We assessed the extent to which cigarette smokers in this population switched to smokeless tobacco (e.g., harm reduction) following the smoking ban during basic military training.^12,13,24 We also explored the extent to which smokers increased their potential risk by switching to dual tobacco use (e.g., harm escalation).     

Prevalence,Harm Perceptions,and Reasons for Using Noncombustible Tobacco Products Among Current and Former Smokers

Objectives. We provided estimates of noncombustible tobacco product (electronic nicotine delivery systems [ENDS]; snus; chewing tobacco, dip, or snuff; and dissolvables) use among current and former smokers and examined harm perceptions of noncombustible tobacco products and reasons for their use.Methods. We assessed awareness of, prevalence of, purchase of, harm perceptions of, and reasons for using noncombustible tobacco products among 1487 current and former smokers from 8 US designated market areas. We used adjusted logistic regression to identify correlates of noncombustible tobacco product use.Results. Of the sample, 96% were aware of at least 1 noncombustible tobacco product, but only 33% had used and 21% had purchased one. Noncombustible tobacco product use was associated with being male, non-Hispanic White, younger, and more nicotine dependent. Respondents used noncombustible tobacco products to cut down or quit cigarettes, but only snus was associated with a higher likelihood of making a quit attempt. Users of noncombustible tobacco products, particularly ENDS, were most likely to endorse the product as less harmful than cigarettes.Conclusions. Smokers may use noncombustible tobacco products to cut down or quit smoking. However, noncombustible tobacco product use was not associated with a reduction in cigarettes per day or cessation.The use of noncombustible tobacco products has increased rapidly in recent years1–3 and may continue to rise in response to restrictions such as smoke-free indoor air laws and rising cigarette taxes.4–8 Noncombustible tobacco products can be grouped into 2 broad categories—aerosolized products such as e-cigarettes, or more accurately termed electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which deliver nicotine primarily through vapor inhalation that mimics smoking a traditional cigarette,9 and smokeless tobacco products such as chew, dip, or snuff; snus; and dissolvables, which deliver nicotine via oral mucosal absorption.10 These products are marketed to appeal to unique target audiences,9,11–13 such as smokers and young adults, and vary in levels of harmful constituents.9Noncombustible tobacco products are a critical part of the tobacco industry’s strategy to navigate the changing tobacco product landscape. Phillip Morris14,15 and RJ Reynolds16 have announced their intent to develop and market noncombustible tobacco products as part of a shift to reduced harm products.17 In some cases, noncombustible tobacco products have been used to expand the appeal of established cigarette brands to a broader spectrum of consumers, as with RJ Reynolds’s Camel Snus product.18 Most ENDS are marketed and sold independently; however, this is changing with Lorillard’s acquisition of blu eCigs in 201219,20 and the recent launches of RJ Reynolds’s Vuse digital vapor cigarettes21,22 and Altria’s MarkTen e-cigarettes.23Noncombustible tobacco product awareness and prevalence vary by product. In 2010, approximately 40% of adults reported awareness of e-cigarettes,24,25 rising to nearly 60% in 201125; awareness approached 75% among current and former smokers in 2010 to 2011.26 Between 1.8% and 3.4% of the adult general population has tried an e-cigarette,24,25,27,28 including up to 21.2% of current smokers.25,26 More than 40% of adults have heard of snus,29 5% have tried the product,29 and 1.4% are current users.30 Awareness of dissolvables is low (10%), and use is even lower (0.5%).29 Noncombustible tobacco product use is highest among young adults26,31 and smokers.24,27,28Although use of noncombustible tobacco products could potentially reduce harm associated with smoking if they replace cigarettes,32,33 some studies suggest that current smokers who use noncombustible tobacco products do not reduce combustible use and may delay cessation.12,34–37 For example, a study by Wetter et al.38 found that dual users of smokeless tobacco products and cigarettes were less likely to quit than were either smokeless tobacco product or cigarette users alone. This is of concern given the rising rates of dual use; a recent study reported that 30% of young adults who smoke cigarettes use at least 1 other tobacco product.31 Dual use is more prevalent among men,39,40 those of lower socioeconomic status,39,41 and youths and young adults.35,41,42Studies show that most users (65%–85%) perceive ENDS as less harmful than cigarettes,24,26,43 and 40% to 50% perceive snus and dissolvables as equally harmful as cigarettes.29 Few studies have examined reasons for use; one study of visitors to ENDS and smoking cessation Web sites found that nearly 85% used ENDS because they believed that they were less toxic than tobacco; other responses included use of ENDS to deal with cravings or withdrawal, to quit smoking, and to save money.43 Focus group research has shown that adults associate snus and dissolvables with historic images of chewing tobacco,34,44 express skepticism that the products are safer than cigarettes,34 do not view them as substitutes for cigarettes,34,44 and express concern about the user’s lack of control of nicotine ingestion relative to cigarettes.44 By contrast, young adults expressed positive perceptions of snus, dissolvables, and ENDS, in part because of a willingness to experiment with new products and because they are available in flavors.45With the ever-changing tobacco marketplace and the tobacco companies’ commitment to the development and promotion of noncombustible tobacco products, surveillance is critical. This study built on previous research to provide current estimates of noncombustible tobacco product use among current and former smokers and examined harm perceptions of noncombustible tobacco products and reasons for their use.     

The impact of declining smoking on radon-related lung cancer in the United States

Objectives. We examined the effect of current patterns of smoking rates on future radon-related lung cancer.Methods. We combined the model developed by the National Academy of Science''s Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (the BEIR VI committee) for radon risk assessment with a forecasting model of US adult smoking prevalence to estimate proportional decline in radon-related deaths during the present century with and without mitigation of high-radon houses.Results. By 2025, the reduction in radon mortality from smoking reduction (15 percentage points) will surpass the maximum expected reduction from remediation (12 percentage points).Conclusions. Although still a genuine source of public health concern, radon-induced lung cancer is likely to decline substantially, driven by reductions in smoking rates. Smoking decline will reduce radon deaths more that remediation of high-radon houses, a fact that policymakers should consider as they contemplate the future of cancer control.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that radon in the home is responsible for over 21 000 lung cancer deaths annually among Americans, making radon the major cause of lung cancer after tobacco use. The agency considers radon a major public health problem and, since 1986, has mounted an aggressive campaign urging the public to test their homes for radon and take remedial actions when airborne concentrations of radon exceed 4 picocuries per liter of air (4 pCi/L).¹For its most current risk assessment, the EPA employed the BEIR VI model, developed by the Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (the BEIR VI committee) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).² The BEIR VI model''s calculation of radon-related risk (as was the case for its predecessor, BEIR IV) was estimated from data on miners, who are subject to much higher levels of radon than is the average population and have shown a significant correlation between lung cancer risk and radon exposure. Although the extrapolation of the results from miners to the much less exposed general public initially caused controversy, the BEIR VI implications of risk have been validated by recent case–control studies at the population level.^3–5 The BEIR VI model is thus broadly accepted as a valid predictor of the radon-related risk for typical individuals.The available data suggest a strong interaction effect between radon exposure and smoking status in the determination of lung cancer risk, which means that smokers are at a much higher risk of dying from radon-induced lung cancer than are nonsmokers. This interaction is recognized in the BEIR VI model, which postulates a superadditive (but less than multiplicative) interaction between smoking and radon. To appreciate the magnitude of this interaction, consider the fact that the background lung cancer risk ratio between ever and never smokers is 13 to 1.⁶ A multiplicative interaction between radon and smoking would imply that, at the same level of radon exposure, the ratio of radon-induced excess risk between ever and never smokers would be the same as the ratio of background lung cancer risks between those 2 groups (i.e., 13 to 1). On the other hand, an additive relationship between radon and smoking would imply that radon would add the same extra risk to ever and never smokers exposed to the same dosage, making the excess risks ratio between the 2 groups equal 1 to 1. Using the BEIR VI model, the EPA calculates that, at a radon level of 4 pCi/L, the lifetime risk of radon-induced lung cancer death is 62 per 1000 for ever smokers and 7 per 1000 for never smokers, yielding an excess risk ratio of 8.86 to 1 between the 2 groups.¹ As 8.86 falls between 1 and 13, the BEIR VI model implies that radon adds more risk to ever smokers than to never smokers, but that excess risk is less than proportional to the lung cancer background risk of those 2 groups, suggesting a submultiplicative (but superadditive) relationship between smoking and radon. The BEIR VI model does not distinguish between current and former smokers.Given this implied superadditive interaction, the number of future radon deaths will heavily depend on population smoking rates. As smoking rates in the United States have been falling for several decades and are expected to continue declining, the overall magnitude of the radon death toll is likely to decline as well. The question we try to address is what is the magnitude of this expected decline?We extend the EPA''s analysis by examining the sensitivity of radon-related lung cancer in the United States to future smoking rates. We estimate the proportional decline in the number of lung cancer deaths caused by radon for the period 2006 through 2100, assuming a likely scenario for smoking rates. We do not forecast specific numbers of radon-induced lung cancer deaths because these numbers will depend on many factors likely to change over such a long period of time. Instead, we concentrate on the relative impact of the smoking decline on the overall radon death toll and also examine the benefits of remediating houses with high radon levels given the results of our analysis. Following the EPA''s approach, in our computations, we employ the BEIR VI model, thereby assuming a submultiplicative relationship between smoking and radon. In the remaining sections of the report, we discuss the assumptions, models, and data employed in our analysis, our findings, and the implications of the results for both the magnitude of radon-related risk to the population and the effectiveness of housing remediation in reducing such risk.     

The Effect of Household Smoking Bans on Household Smoking

Objectives. Because household smoking levels and adoption of domestic smoking rules may be endogenously related, we estimated a nonrecursive regression model to determine the simultaneous relationship between home smoking restrictions and household smoking.Methods. We used data from a May–June 2012 survey of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, households with smokers (n = 456) to determine the simultaneous association between smoking levels in the home and the presence of home restrictions on smoking.Results. We found that home smoking rules predicted smoking in the home but smoking in the home had no effect on home smoking restrictions.Conclusions. Absent in-home randomized experiments, a quasi-experimental causal inference suggesting that home smoking rules result in lower home smoking levels may be plausible.Secondhand smoke (also known as “passive smoking” or “environmental tobacco smoke”) is a health hazard for children and adults.1–5 Institutional, city, or national smoking restrictions reduce smoking prevalence and the average consumption of smokers while naturally limiting exposure to secondhand smoke.6–11 At the household level, the research focus has been on the efficacy of household bans on indoor smoking to reduce nonsmokers’ and children’s exposure.12–18 Many studies have found that smokers in households with smoking bans or restrictive smoking rules smoke fewer cigarettes than smokers in households with no bans or rules.19–23 This relationship appears to suggest that household smoking restrictions are effective in reducing household smoking. But do household bans really reduce household smoking? Unfortunately, this situation is not the same as when smoking bans are implemented in bars,24,25 hospitals,26 prisons,27 schools,28 or countries.29,30 In all of these examples, the bans are introduced independently of the prevalent smoking levels of the institution, city, or country because passive smoking exposure is seen as an important health hazard that requires an administrative or legislative response.In households, this analogy does not necessarily hold. Household smoking could be negatively related to household smoking bans because smokers who smoke fewer cigarettes or households with little smoking may implement a household smoking ban whereas heavier smokers or households with multiple smokers could not do so.23,31 In this situation, household smoking bans are endogenous32 relative to household smoking, which implies that household smoking levels cause the smoking ban, not the reverse. To determine which explanation is correct, an experiment that implemented a household ban randomly in regard to household smoking levels would be appropriate.14,33,34 Under experimental conditions, the ban would be independent of household smoking levels and the effect of implementing a household smoking ban on smoking could be unambiguously estimated.     

The Effectiveness of Cigarette Price and Smoke-Free Homes on Low-Income Smokers in the United States

Objectives. We examined the effectiveness of state cigarette price and smoke-free homes on smoking behaviors of low-income and high-income populations in the United States.Methods. We used the 2006–2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The primary outcomes were average daily cigarette consumption and successful quitting. We used multivariable regression to examine the association of cigarette price and smoke-free home policies on these outcomes.Results. High state cigarette price (pack price ≥ $4.50) was associated with lower consumption across all income levels. Although low-income individuals were least likely to adopt smoke-free homes, those who adopted them had consumption levels and successful quit rates that were similar to those among higher-income individuals. In multivariable analysis, both policies were independently associated with lower consumption, but only smoke-free homes were associated with sustained cessation at 90 days.Conclusions. High cigarette prices and especially smoke-free homes have the potential to reduce smoking behaviors among low-income individuals. Interventions are needed to increase adoption of smoke-free homes among low-income populations to increase cessation rates and prevent relapse.High state cigarette prices1–3 and clean indoor air laws4–8 are 2 of the most effective tobacco control policies for decreasing tobacco use5 and increasing cessation on a population level.4–6 These policies have been included in national surveillance surveys of tobacco use.9 Whether these policies are effective among lower-income as well as higher-income smokers is unclear. Some studies, including an econometric analysis,10 have suggested that price and clean air laws have a similar effect in reducing smoking behavior among lower- and higher-income smokers.2,10,11 Others have suggested that such policies may be less effective for lower-income smokers12–14 as they have a higher smoking prevalence,15 higher consumption rate per smoker,16 and lower rates of successful quitting17–19 compared with higher-income smokers. Indeed, the prevalence of smoking among adults living below the federal poverty level (FPL) is almost 50% higher than the prevalence in the general population.15Economic theory suggests that rising cigarette prices should reduce cigarette consumption more in low-income smokers compared with those with higher incomes.2,12,13,20–23 However, studies have shown that low-income smokers vary in their response to rising cigarette prices. Some individuals may compensate for higher prices by relying on lower-priced cigarette products (e.g., generic vs premium brands, discount vs convenience stores, or non–state-taxed products [e.g., from Indian reservations] vs taxed products).23–29 Others who are motivated to quit may react to a price increase as an opportunity to quit smoking or reduce cigarette consumption.3,21 One concern is that the higher prevalence of heavy smoking among low-income smokers may be evidence of impaired personal autonomy such that fewer are able to quit even with a price increase.30 This in combination with the stress of coping with material or environmental constraints may pose significant challenges to smoking cessation.31 Another concern is that high cigarette prices can result in a significant financial burden for low-income smokers.32Social cognitive theory predicts that a person’s motivation to change behavior varies with the social norms of his or her environment.33 Variability in smoking behaviors between low- and high-income smokers may result from different social norms related to smoking.34 The passage of smoke-free policies in communities is one indicator of social norms related to smoking35; a stronger marker is the prevalence of households with smokers who have voluntarily established a smoke-free home.6 Strong clean indoor air laws are associated with increased adoption of smoke-free homes among smokers and nonsmokers.36,37 Smoke-free homes have been associated with reduced exposure to second-hand smoke among nonsmokers, and reduced smoking behaviors among smokers.5,6,38 Lower-income adults are less likely than higher-income adults to adopt smoke-free homes,39,40 reflecting differential smoking norms in the respective communities.To determine whether cigarette prices and smoke-free home policies are effective among smokers of different income levels, we used the 2006–2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey, to explore the association of these policies with smoking behaviors by income categories indexed on poverty status. The level of excise tax on tobacco products has differed considerably across states.41 Thus, we aggregated self-reported purchase price of cigarettes and compared across states. We examined whether average daily consumption and successful quitting differed by income levels among adults living in states with higher average cigarette prices compared with those with lower prices. We similarly assessed whether an income gradient existed in cigarette consumption and successful quitting among adults living in smoke-free homes relative to non–smoke-free homes. We examined the independent association of state cigarette price and smoke-free homes on smoking behaviors. We hypothesized that smoke-free homes would be a stronger predictor than price in reducing smoking behaviors because smokers may have access to a number of price-minimizing strategies23,26 but lack similar strategies to minimize the effects of smoking restrictions.     

A Qualitative Content Analysis of Cigarette Health Warning Labels in Australia,Canada, the United Kingdom,and the United States

The legislation of health warning labels on cigarette packaging is a major focus for tobacco control internationally and is a key component of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This population-level intervention is broadly supported as a vital measure for warning people about the health consequences of smoking. However, some components of this approach warrant close critical inspection. Through a qualitative content analysis of the imagery used on health warning labels from 4 countries, we consider how this imagery depicts people that smoke. By critically analyzing this aspect of the visual culture of tobacco control, we argue that this imagery has the potential for unintended consequences, and obscures the social and embodied contexts in which smoking is experienced.Visual imagery of the health effects of smoking has a long history in the context of antitobacco campaigns. Such images featured prominently in Victorian era antismoking literature,1,2 and visual representations of the deleterious effects of smoking on the body have been a continuous thread in modern-day tobacco control and public health iconography. The first warning labels mandated on cigarette packaging were text-based only, enacted in the United States a year after the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report decisively linked smoking to cancer and other adverse health outcomes.3 In 1965, the US Federal Cigarette Labeling Act required cigarette cartons and packs to carry the warning, “Caution: cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health.”4^(p13) The addition of pictures to warning labels on tobacco packaging is a relatively recent phenomenon, legislated first in Canada in 2000.5 Following Canada’s lead, many other countries have since followed suit, with text and picture-based warnings required in 63 countries worldwide as of 2012.6 The use of visual imagery (referred to specifically as “health warning labels”) on tobacco packaging has been driven by the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and is based on the premise that “a picture says a thousand words.”6^(p1) Article 11 sets out clear standards for health warning labels, which are expected to cover “as much of the principal display areas as possible.”7^(p34)For tobacco control advocates, the impetus for visually based warning labels was clearly protection and empowerment against the tobacco industry’s tactics—for children and youths, who were seen as particularly susceptible to “prosmoking” media imagery, and for consumers, who had been subject to industry “fraud” and misinformation about the health risks and consequences of smoking.5^(p356) However, although the ostensible purpose of the visual imagery used on health warning labels is to educate smokers about the effects of smoking, it draws some of its impetus from the assumption that the subjective emotional response the images may provoke will force smokers into “realizing the harm done to their bodies.”8^(p358) In other words, the transition from text-based to visual warning labels reflects a growing awareness that the labels could be used not just to transmit information but to affect behavioral change. Indeed, health warning labels on cigarette packages are seen to be even more effective than traditional print and television campaigns because they “potentially reach smokers every time they purchase or consume tobacco products.”7^(p23) The underlying assumption is that, in contrast to similar messages presented in other mediums, the warnings are unavoidable. From a public health standpoint, a third goal of such labels is to facilitate tobacco denormalization by challenging the social and cultural acceptability of smoking, especially the glamorization of tobacco in media and popular visual culture.9 In this respect, the visual culture of tobacco control has been heavily influenced by the tobacco industry, and aims to use its strategies and practices against it.10Numerous studies support the view that hard-hitting graphic labels are more effective than text-based warning labels in stimulating awareness of tobacco-related health risks and increasing motivation and intentions to quit smoking.8,11,12 Plain cigarette packaging is seen to be particularly effective in reducing the appeal of smoking and focusing attention on the image and text of the health warning labels.13 Australia’s introduction of plain cigarette packaging requirements in December 2012 has generated considerable interest in such legislation. However, one limitation of the available research is that responses to cigarette packages are studied in a context in which the ordinary coordinates of smoking are absent, making effectiveness very difficult to judge.14Critical approaches to health promotion challenge the assumption of a simplistic or unidirectional relationship between public health campaigns and their intended targets, in which audiences are passive recipients of health information. Contrary to a didactic model of health education and its emphasis on individual behavioral change, critical approaches recognize the structural context of smoking and the social, historical, and political circumstances in which antismoking messages are deployed. Thus, multiple readings and responses on the part of message recipients are inevitable. In the arena of smoking cessation, this includes the potential for negative responses, ranging from context dissonance15 to defiance or resistance.16–18 This recognition challenges mainstream and top-down approaches in health promotion, which may assume that health-related behavior change is merely a matter of better education for at-risk individuals and groups (i.e., that programmers and policymakers just need to get the message right). These approaches also highlight the need for public health policies to move beyond an exclusive emphasis on questions of efficacy to consider the ethics of the strategies employed (i.e., even if they do work, at what cost?). Without careful consideration of the ethical implications and unintended consequences of such messaging, the “war against smoking” may instead become a counterproductive “war against smokers.”Our analysis of health warning labels on cigarette packaging has been informed by previous research on the visual culture of public health, which suggests that health promotion and education campaigns are constitutive of deeply embedded cultural understandings of health, illness, and social relations of power.19–21 From this standpoint, it is useful to consider how health-related imagery presented as scientific and objective privileges particular ways of seeing and defining both the bodies and identities of those who are “healthy” and pathological bodies at risk for illness.22–24 As critical public health scholars suggest, health promotion campaigns not only reinforce a normative imagery of health but can also contribute to social exclusion, stigmatization, and dehumanization when graphic and confronting images designed to provoke disgust are used.16,25 These tendencies have been explored in the context of issues such as injury prevention and disability,26,27 HIV/AIDS,22,28,29 obesity,25 and substance use, including alcohol30 and smoking.31,32 For example, analyses of antitobacco messages for pregnant women33 and campaigns directed toward adolescent girls34 suggest that the former promote the notion of the “bad mother” and neglect smoking by fathers and other men, whereas the latter reinforce the idea that what is most valuable about women is their external, physical appearance.35We analyzed the visual culture of tobacco control as represented by cigarette health warning labels in the context of 4 countries, and interpreted what this reveals about smoking as a social identity and practice. Such labels provide openings through which to see the “densely elaborated iconography”36^(p107) of tobacco control and how it conceptualizes smoking and people labeled as smokers. We contend that the currently used and proposed sets of health warning labels ground understandings of smoking and its effects in ways that obscure certain dimensions of the practice while foregrounding and prefiguring others. In particular, they frame smoking as an individual risk behavior, one entirely isolable from its social context. Our approach is critical of such framing, and cuts against both its emphasis on a biomedical imagery of the “diseased and dying” body and its diminishment of agency.9     

Socioeconomic Status and Lung Cancer: Unraveling the Contribution of Genetic Admixture

Objectives. We examined the relationship between genetic ancestry, socioeconomic status (SES), and lung cancer among African Americans and Latinos.Methods. We evaluated SES and genetic ancestry in a Northern California lung cancer case–control study (1998–2003) of African Americans and Latinos. Lung cancer case and control participants were frequency matched on age, gender, and race/ethnicity. We assessed case–control differences in individual admixture proportions using the 2-sample t test and analysis of covariance. Logistic regression models examined associations among genetic ancestry, socioeconomic characteristics, and lung cancer.Results. Decreased Amerindian ancestry was associated with higher education among Latino control participants and greater African ancestry was associated with decreased education among African lung cancer case participants. Education was associated with lung cancer among both Latinos and African Americans, independent of smoking, ancestry, age, and gender. Genetic ancestry was not associated with lung cancer among African Americans.Conclusions. Findings suggest that socioeconomic factors may have a greater impact than genetic ancestry on lung cancer among African Americans. The genetic heterogeneity and recent dynamic migration and acculturation of Latinos complicate recruitment; thus, epidemiological analyses and findings should be interpreted cautiously.Associations between socioeconomic status (SES) and cancer incidence or mortality and accompanying racial/ethnic differences are common findings across cancers and populations.1–9 An inverse association between socioeconomic measures and lung cancer incidence and mortality is a consistent observation among populations,7,10–18 especially among men, although for lung cancer mortality in the United States, this pattern is a reversal of that of earlier decades.19 Socioeconomic measurements are also known to vary across diverse populations.20 In the United States, African Americans and Latinos have, on average, lower education, larger household sizes, and lower income and are frequently unmarried compared with Whites.21–24 Smoking is more prevalent among people characterized by low socioeconomic factors such as low education, low income, and working-class occupations.20,25–27 Studies examining the relationship between SES and lung cancer, or cancer in general, have used surveys and registries with large sample sizes, thereby increasing the precision of effect estimates.7,11,12 However, these studies have been constrained by the lack of data on important risk factors for lung cancer11 or have linked aggregate socioeconomic exposure data to individual-level disease status.6,7,11 Ascribing attributes of a group to an individual may not be appropriate and can result in inaccurate inferences, especially if the exposure, SES, is misclassified.28,29Despite known disparities in lung cancer incidence30 and consistently observed associations between SES and both lung cancer and race/ethnicity, few studies have examined this interrelationship, which is thought to result from a complex interplay of environmental, social, economic, and genetic factors. Using incident cancer registry data, Krieger et al.31 observed an inverse relationship between lung cancer incidence and socioeconomic deprivation among African Americans but an increase in incidence with economic prosperity among Latinos. A study examining lung cancer among Latinos found that incidence increased as income increased and the percentage of Latinos residing in the census tract decreased.32 Many studies examining socioeconomic differences in lung cancer risk have suggested the increased risk cannot be fully explained by smoking, occupational, or dietary exposures,13,15,16,33,34 whereas others have found that controlling for several measures such as smoking,35 dietary fat, and perceived health removed associations with SES.17 Some studies examining racial/ethnic differences in lung cancer found ethnic differences disappeared after adjusting for SES.6,7,11 Together, these findings highlight the complexities of understanding the relationship among SES, lung cancer, and race/ethnicity.Self-reported race/ethnicity represents a combination of several factors—genetic, social, economic, and environmental.36 Moreover, because of the ancestral heterogeneity of Latinos and African Americans, self-reported race/ethnicity does not provide precise genetic information. Recent advances in statistical tools and identification of genetic markers informative for ancestry have enabled the genetic heterogeneity of populations to be described and applied to epidemiological studies. Genetic ancestry associations are a useful tool to suggest that a genetic component contributes to disease disparities and admixture mapping is implemented to identify genetic factors contributing to disease.37,38 Of importance is that genetic ancestry may be associated with socioeconomic factors.39–43 For example, Sánchez et al.42 revealed Amerindian ancestry was greater in individuals with fewer years of education. Complex associations among SES, ancestry, and lung cancer require examination to disentangle their contributions to lung cancer. We examined the relationship among SES, genetic ancestry, and lung cancer in a case–control study conducted with African Americans and Latinos.     

The Role of Personal Attributes in the Genesis and Progression of Lung Disease and Cigarette Smoking

Objectives. We examined early maladaptive personal attributes (e.g., depression), later lung disease, and later maladaptive personal attributes over a significant part of a woman’s life.Methods. We gathered longitudinal data on a prospective cohort of community-dwelling women (n = 498) followed from young adulthood to late midlife.Results. We used structural equation modeling to assess the interrelations of maladaptive personal attributes, cigarette smoking, lung disease, and financial strain. The results supported a mediational model through which early maladaptive personal attributes were associated with smoking (b = 0.17, P < .001), which in turn predicted later lung disease (b = 0.33, P < .001), and lung disease was related to later family financial difficulties (b = 0.09, P < .05), which in turn were associated with later maladaptive personal attributes (b = 0.35, P < .001).Conclusions. Our results address a number of important public health and clinical issues. An understanding of the interrelations of smoking, underlying mental health conditions, financial stress, and later mental health conditions on the part of physicians and other health care providers can be critical in managing patients with lung disease.Lung disease remains a major cause of mortality in developed nations as well as developing countries.1 The role of cigarette smoking in causing lung disease has been widely known since the classic studies of lung cancer by Wynder and Graham2 and Doll and Hill.3 Cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing lung cancer.4 In addition, cigarette smoking causes nonneoplastic lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and increases the risk of dying of chronic bronchitis or emphysema.4In contrast to studies on the relationship of cigarette smoking to lung disease,5 few studies involving community samples have focused on the role of maladaptive personal factors (e.g., depression, anxiety) in the development and progression of lung disease. Although the devastating psychological impact of advanced lung disease and the high rate of psychopathology in patients with lung disease have been described in small studies,6,7 there have been few systematic investigations of the role of maladaptive personal attributes in predicting lung disease and contributing to its progression over several decades (but see Katz et al.8 for a longitudinal study involving a community sample). In this study, we assessed psychosocial predictors and concomitants of lung disease among women from young adulthood to late midlife.With respect to the role of maladaptive personal attributes, there is some evidence that negative emotions and behaviors are related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to deterioration in lung function.9–11 According to Laurin et al.,12 patients with psychiatric disorders are at greater risk for exacerbations of COPD than are individuals without psychiatric disorders. In a recent study, Katz et al.8 reported that the prevalence of depression among individuals with COPD is quite high. One of the possible mediators between maladaptive personal attributes and lung disease is cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking has been linked to early maladaptive personal attributes, such as depressive symptoms and anxiety,9,13,14 and to later lung disease.4According to self-medication theory, people smoke to relieve psychological tension.15 Personal factors, such as a lack of self-control, may also influence a person’s decision to smoke despite knowledge of the harmful consequences of cigarette smoking.14,16 There is also evidence that lung disease is related to family financial distress17,18 and maladaptive personal attributes,19–23 and economic stress13 has been linked to maladaptive personal attributes.24 In addition, in the United States, lower socioeconomic status is related to increased rates of cigarette smoking.25Overall, evidence on the associations of maladaptive personal attributes with lung disease as well as the relation of lung disease to later financial difficulty and maladaptive personal attributes in women is sparse. Therefore, these associations merit further investigation in large-scale studies of women. Indeed, the recent literature suggests that women are particularly susceptible to lung disease.26,27Our overall goal was to assess whether maladaptive personal attributes predict the development of lung disease among women. We hypothesized that the linkage between earlier personal attributes and later development of lung disease would be mediated by cigarette smoking. We also predicted that earlier lung disease would be related to both later financial difficulty and maladaptive personal attributes.     

National Trends in Smoking Behaviors Among Mexican,Puerto Rican,and Cuban Men and Women in the United States

Objectives. We examined trends in smoking behaviors across 2 periods among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans in the United States.Methods. We analyzed data from the 1992–2007 Tobacco Use Supplements to the Current Population Survey. We constructed 2 data sets (1990s vs 2000s) to compare smoking behaviors between the 2 periods.Results. Significant decreases in ever, current, and heavy smoking were accompanied by increases in light and intermittent smoking across periods for all Latino groups, although current smoking rates among Puerto Rican women did not decline. Adjusted logistic regression models revealed that in the 2000s, younger Mexicans and those interviewed in English were more likely to be light and intermittent smokers. Mexican and Cuban light and intermittent smokers were less likely to be advised by healthcare professionals to quit smoking. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans who were unemployed and Mexicans who worked outdoors were more likely to be heavy smokers.Conclusions. Increases in light and intermittent smoking among Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban Americans suggest that targeted efforts to further reduce smoking among Latinos may benefit by focusing on such smokers.Since 2000, Latinos have experienced the largest population growth of all US racial/ethnic groups, making Latinos the largest ethnic minority group in the country at 16.3% of the population.1 Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans are the 3 largest Latino national and family background groups in the United States.1 The leading causes of death among Latinos are coronary heart disease and cancer, both of which are strongly associated with tobacco use.2,3 Although differences in smoking rates by Latino national origin groups have been found,4–6 very little research has examined trends in smoking behaviors for various Latino national origin groups by gender in the United States.The aggregation of smoking rates for various Latino national origin groups masks important variations within the population group.4 For example, smoking prevalence rates as determined by national data from 2008 are highest among Cubans (21.5%), followed by Mexicans (20.1%), and Puerto Ricans (18.6%).3 Puerto Ricans and Cubans are also more likely to be current smokers than are Mexicans.7 Furthermore, although research grounded on a nationally representative sample found that Latinos were approximately 4.5 times more likely to be light smokers than were non-Hispanic Whites,8 that study provided only aggregated rates for all Latinos and did not differentiate between national origin groups. Gender differences have also been reported among disaggregated Latino groups. A higher prevalence of smoking has been reported among Mexican (25.0%), Puerto Rican (27.6%), and Cuban (24.7%) men than among Mexican (10.4%), Puerto Rican (24.2%), and Cuban (12.4%) women.7 The lower rates of smoking among women have been consistent in surveys of Latinos.5,7,9 Results from these studies, although informative, have generally been determined by aggregated Latino data or data from a single survey time point. Although such data are valuable and can demonstrate existing gender differences, national-level trends from Latino nationality groups in the United States add valuable information that have not been previously reported.Previous research has also identified social and environmental factors associated with Latinos’ smoking behaviors. Acculturation to mainstream US culture plays a significant role in one’s health behaviors,10 and as Latinos acculturate, their smoking behaviors become similar to those of non-Hispanic Whites.7 Existing research has also revealed that Latinos are less likely to quit smoking,11 receive tobacco screening, and be advised to quit by a physician than are non-Hispanic Whites.12–15 A health professionals’ advice to quit smoking has been found to increase the likelihood that a smoker will successfully quit.16,17 Lastly, workplace smoking policies have also influenced smoking prevalence and intensity.18–20 Work environments adopting a smoke-free policy saw a 14% decrease in individuals’ smoking.21 When examining national-level smoking behaviors among Latinos, it is important to account for social and environmental factors such as acculturation, physician advice to quit smoking, and work environment smoking policies, as they may influence smoking behaviors.Existing research on smoking behaviors among Latino national origin groups has been predicated on data from specific regions of the United States.4,22–25 Although regional data are important for the development of community-level interventions,4 national-level data provide an overview of the country’s progress in tobacco control as well as remaining and emerging challenges for Latinos nationwide. We compared smoking behaviors across 2 periods, about a decade apart, among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans. Our goals in these analyses were (1) to compare Latino national origin groups across 2 periods to examine factors affecting changes in smoking behavior within and between groups, and (2) to evaluate demographic factors that influence current smoking behaviors within Latino national origin groups in the most recent period available. Examining long-term national trends in Latino smoking behaviors may prove vital to policymakers, public health officials, community workers, and interventionists as they address tobacco-related issues.     

“They’re Going to Die Anyway”: Smoking Shelters at Veterans’ Facilities

Military personnel and veterans are disadvantaged by inadequate tobacco control policies. We conducted a case study of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) effort to disallow smoking and tobacco sales in VA facilities.Despite strong VA support, the tobacco industry created a public relations–focused grassroots veterans’ opposition group, eventually pushing the US Congress to pass a law requiring smoking areas in every VA health facility. Arguing that it would be unpatriotic to deny veterans this “freedom” they had ostensibly fought for and that banning smoking could even harm veterans’ health, industry consultants exploited veterans’ organizations to protect tobacco industry profits.Civilian public health advocates should collaborate with veterans to expose the industry’s manipulation, reframe the debate, and repeal the law.THE US MILITARY, COMPOSED primarily of working-class young people, has long been an important source of new smokers for the tobacco industry.1 Although approaching civilian prevalence in recent years,2 tobacco use among military personnel has historically been much higher than that among civilian populations, resulting in greater morbidity and mortality among veterans.3 The tobacco industry has repeatedly interfered with the military’s attempts to discourage smoking.4–6 The tobacco industry exerts influence on civilian overseers of the military through campaign contributions to Congress members, especially those from tobacco-growing states.7 Congress has berated and intimidated military leaders who promote tobacco control4,6 and has written industry-favored policies into law.5,6On discharge from service, the interests of the 24 million veterans of the US armed services are overseen by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).3 In 2007, one third of veterans were enrolled in the VA’s health care system, which includes 171 hospitals throughout the United States.8 Veterans smoke at higher rates than do nonveterans,9 are more likely to die prematurely,10 and incur high costs for treating tobacco-caused illnesses.3 For example, each year the VA spends $5 billion to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 80% of which is attributable to smoking.3 Whether veterans or governments bear the costs, many veterans experience shortened lifespans, physical suffering, and financial hardship because of tobacco use.By the late 1980s, nearly all civilian hospitals prohibited indoor smoking.11,12 In March 1991, the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, now the Joint Commission, declared that “Accredited hospitals will have to disseminate and enforce a hospitalwide no-smoking policy.”11 Since that time, many hospitals have established not only smoke-free buildings but also smoke-free grounds, partly as a result of concerns about risks of exposure to outdoor secondhand smoke.13 Knowledge about the benefits of cessation, even late in life, has expanded,14 and studies now show that quitting smoking before surgery can lead to better outcomes.15 Denormalizing smoking16,17 and reducing its visibility18 may improve cessation rates, and cessation tends to spread through social networks.19 Smoke-free health facilities, thus, have the potential to improve the health of patients with direct cessation support and by establishing and promoting tobacco-free norms.Although, like many civilian hospital systems, the VA took steps to restrict smoking and tobacco sales at its health care facilities, the tobacco industry, acting through a front group, persuaded Congress to require smoking areas in all VA hospitals. In this archival case study, we explored the enduring legacy of this action and drew lessons for addressing tobacco’s contributions to veterans’ disease burden.     

A nationwide analysis of US racial/ethnic disparities in smoking behaviors, smoking cessation, and cessation-related factors

Objectives. We used nationally representative data to examine racial/ethnic disparities in smoking behaviors, smoking cessation, and factors associated with cessation among US adults.Methods. We analyzed data on adults aged 20 to 64 years from the 2003 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, and we examined associations by fitting adjusted logistic regression models to the data.Results. Compared with non-Hispanic Whites, smaller proportions of African Americans, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics/Latinos had ever smoked. Significantly fewer African Americans reported long-term quitting. Racial/ethnic minorities were more likely to be light and intermittent smokers and less likely to smoke within 30 minutes of waking. Adjusted models revealed that racial/ethnic minorities were not less likely to receive advice from health professionals to quit smoking, but they were less likely to use nicotine replacement therapy.Conclusions. Specific needs and ideal program focuses for cessation may vary across racial/ethnic groups, such that approaches tailored by race/ethnicity might be optimal. Traditional conceptualizations of cigarette addiction and the quitting process may need to be revised for racial/ethnic minority smokers.Racial/ethnic minorities in the United States experience a disproportionate burden of smoking-related diseases, including cancer and heart disease, despite having larger proportions of light and intermittent smokers and generally lower adult smoking prevalence rates than non-Hispanic Whites.^1–3 Racial/ethnic minorities are also less likely to quit smoking successfully than are non-Hispanic Whites.^4–8 For example, rates of successful smoking cessation among African American smokers are lower than they are among non-Hispanic Whites, despite reports citing lower cigarette consumption.^2,5,7,9 Similarly, Hispanics/Latinos do not experience higher rates of successful quitting than non-Hispanic Whites, despite being more likely to be light and intermittent smokers.^2,9 There is currently no evidence indicating that Asian Americans quit at higher rates than non-Hispanic Whites in the United States.¹⁰ The examination of racial/ethnic disparities in smoking behaviors, successful quitting, and factors associated with quitting can provide valuable information for focusing strategies for groups currently experiencing lower rates of successful smoking cessation, and can lead to decreases in smoking-related disease rates across all racial/ethnic populations.Previous research on population-level data has found several factors to be associated with successful smoking cessation. For example, banning smoking in one''s home can greatly increase the chances of successfully quitting smoking. The presence of a complete ban on smoking in one''s home is associated with being quit for at least 90 days¹¹ and with being a former smoker.¹² However, an analysis of national data found that smaller percentages of non-Hispanic Whites (64.0%) and African Americans (64.4%) have a complete home smoking ban than do Hispanics/Latinos (78.0%) and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (79.2%).¹³ Being advised to quit smoking by health care professionals, especially physicians, has also been associated with increased rates of smoking cessation.^14–17 Despite progress in smokers being advised to quit by health care practitioners in the past 5 years, African American and Hispanic/Latino smokers remain less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to be advised to quit.^16,18 Finally, although evidence of the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) at the population level has been challenged recently,^19,20 there is evidence that NRT can aid successful cessation.^17,21–23 There is substantial evidence that racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to be prescribed NRT^14,15,18 and to use NRT to quit smoking.^23–25The Tobacco Use Supplements to the Current Population Surveys (TUS-CPS) have provided invaluable data for the examination of various smoking-related issues at the national level.^11,13 In 2003, the TUS-CPS included a special supplement that focused heavily on smoking cessation. This supplement was the first TUS-CPS with this focus (and is the only one to date), and it provides arguably the richest representative national-level data on smoking cessation in the United States. This special supplement thus presented a unique opportunity to examine in detail the disparities between racial/ethnic groups in smoking cessation and important related factors.For our study, we hypothesized the following: (1) African Americans would experience less success in quitting smoking than would non-Hispanic Whites, (2) Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics/Latinos would be more likely to have a complete home smoking ban than would non-Hispanic Whites, (3) African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos would be less likely than would non-Hispanic Whites to report being advised by a health professional to quit smoking, and (4) racial/ethnic minorities would be less likely to use NRT than would non-Hispanic Whites.To examine these hypotheses, we conducted a secondary data analysis of the 2003 TUS-CPS to assess smoking cessation rates and examine how factors associated with successful smoking cessation differed across racial/ethnic groups among adults in the United States. Findings from this report may provide insight into optimal design of targeted smoking cessation interventions for members of specific racial/ethnic groups.     

The Impact of Quitting Smoking on Weight Among Women Prisoners Participating in a Smoking Cessation Intervention

Objectives. We examined the impact of smoking cessation on weight change in a population of women prisoners.Methods. Women prisoners (n = 360) enrolled in a smoking cessation intervention; 250 received a 10-week group intervention plus transdermal nicotine replacement.Results. Women who quit smoking had significant weight gain at 3- and 6-month follow-ups, with a net difference of 10 pounds between smokers and abstainers at 6 months. By the 12-month follow-up, weight gain decreased among abstainers.Conclusions. We are the first, to our knowledge, to demonstrate weight gain associated with smoking cessation among women prisoners. Smoking cessation interventions that address postcessation weight gain as a preventative measure may be beneficial in improving health and reducing the high prevalence of smoking in prisoner populations.Smoking and obesity are the 2 major causes of mortality and morbidity in the United States.^1,2 Although smoking is the leading preventable cause of death, resulting in approximately 440 000 deaths each year,³ obesity is a growing epidemic and is the second leading cause of preventable death, resulting in more than 300 000 deaths annually.^4,5 Whereas smoking rates have declined from their peak in the 1960s, obesity rates have been steadily climbing each year, and obesity is expected to soon eclipse smoking as the most preventable cause of mortality in the United States.¹The relationship between smoking and weight is complex, and the mechanisms by which smoking influences weight are not fully understood. Smoking affects weight by increasing metabolic rate and decreasing caloric absorption, which is thought to help suppress appetite.⁶ Sympathoadrenal activation by nicotine is thought to be primarily responsible for the metabolic effect of smoking.⁷ Smoking is also associated with increased energy expenditure.⁸ Smoking a single cigarette also decreases caloric consumption by 3% within 20 minutes.⁹Compared with light smokers and nonsmokers, heavy smokers tend to have greater body weight, which likely reflects a clustering of risk behaviors (i.e., little physical activity and poor diet) and increased insulin resistance and accumulation of abdominal fat.^6,10,11 Overall, smokers tend to be less physically active than nonsmokers, which may confound explanations of weight differences between smokers and nonsmokers.¹²Most studies on weight and smoking have reported postcessation weight gain. Smoking cessation has been associated with approximately 10 pounds of weight gain after 1 year of abstinence,¹³ suggesting that health benefits from smoking cessation may be mitigated to some degree by increased health risks associated with weight gain.¹⁴ To prevent or reduce weight gain, those administering cessation programs are recommended to integrate follow-up support for weight control, provide regular body weight measurement, provide recommendations for dietary change, and encourage increased physical activity.¹⁴ Despite concerns about weight, few studies have systematically investigated weight gain following smoking cessation, particularly with underserved populations such as prisoners.Correctional populations especially are vulnerable to the negative health consequences of smoking. Smoking rates are 3 to 4 times higher among correctional populations than among the general population, and smoking is normative within the correctional environment.^15–17 Smoking prevalence is 70% to 80% among male and female prisoners,^15–20 while almost half (46%) of adolescents in juvenile justice are daily smokers.²¹ This compared to about 21% of adults in the general population who are current smokers.²² However, in the research literature, the emphasis on smoking prevalence, prevention, cessation, and policies is much greater among other populations than it is among criminal justice populations—despite the human, health, and economic costs that occur in prison and in the community.^20,23In addition to the larger prevalence of smoking in prisons, there is less access to interventions for smoking cessation in correctional facilities. Lack of resources amplifies the negative health risks associated with smoking, such as heart, circulatory, and respiratory problems. Over the past 2 decades, correctional facilities in the United States have implemented tobacco-control policies ranging from restrictions on indoor smoking to complete tobacco bans.²⁴ Tobacco restrictions and bans have not succeeded in suppressing smoking, and reduced access to programs and materials that might increase long-term smoking cessation have paralleled them.^16,17,24,25We recently conducted a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation with women prisoners and found 7-day point prevalence cessation rates comparable to those seen in community smoking cessation interventions.¹⁵ The intervention combined nicotine replacement with a 10-week group therapy intervention.²⁶ The community-tested intervention was modified for the prison environment and included a discussion of weight gain and weekly monitoring of weight during the intervention and follow-up assessments.¹⁵ Point prevalence quit rates for intervention participants were 18% at end of treatment, 17% at 3-month follow-up, 14% at 6-month follow-up, and 12% at 12-month follow-up, compared with less than 1% at these same time points for control participants.¹⁵ We examined differences in weight change over time for (1) women in the intervention condition compared with women in the control condition and (2) women in the intervention condition who quit smoking compared with those who continued to smoke. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to conduct such a trial among women prisoners.     

e-Cigarette Awareness,Use, and Harm Perceptions in US Adults

Objectives. We estimated e-cigarette (electronic nicotine delivery system) awareness, use, and harm perceptions among US adults.Methods. We drew data from 2 surveys conducted in 2010: a national online study (n = 2649) and the Legacy Longitudinal Smoker Cohort (n = 3658). We used multivariable models to examine e-cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions.Results. In the online survey, 40.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.3, 43.1) had heard of e-cigarettes, with awareness highest among current smokers. Utilization was higher among current smokers (11.4%; 95% CI = 9.3, 14.0) than in the total population (3.4%; 95% CI = 2.6, 4.2), with 2.0% (95% CI = 1.0, 3.8) of former smokers and 0.8% (95% CI = 0.35, 1.7) of never-smokers ever using e-cigarettes. In both surveys, non-Hispanic Whites, current smokers, young adults, and those with at least a high-school diploma were most likely to perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes.Conclusions. Awareness of e-cigarettes is high, and use among current and former smokers is evident. We recommend product regulation and careful surveillance to monitor public health impact and emerging utilization patterns, and to ascertain why, how, and under what conditions e-cigarettes are being used.A heterogeneous collection of battery-driven nicotine inhalers—“e-cigarettes” or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)—are emerging products receiving considerable advocacy, policy, and media attention.1 ENDS have been marketed as harm-reducing alternatives to smoking and used as cessation aids, though the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not reviewed these claims or devices.2,3 Independent testing of ENDS has demonstrated poor quality control,2,4 low-level toxic contaminants,5 variable nicotine delivery,2,6,7 and insufficient evidence of overall public health benefit.8 Packaging and Web sites for ENDS reveal unsubstantiated health claims and erroneous nicotine content labeling.4 In addition, their wide combination of flavorings and “high-tech” image are potentially attractive to youths and young adults.2,4 In 2010, the World Health Organization recommended that ENDS products be regulated as combination drug and medical devices.1 Consistent with this recommendation, several countries, such as Australia and Canada, restricted or banned ENDS until reviewed by their regulatory agencies.9,10 A 2009 court decision (Sottera Inc v. Food and Drug Administration)11 blocked the FDA from regulating ENDS as drug delivery devices in the United States, ruling that products containing nicotine derived from tobacco are “tobacco products” under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act unless they are sold as therapeutic aids for cessation.12 In keeping with this ruling, on April 25, 2011, the FDA announced its intention to regulate ENDS as tobacco products. The nature of the FDA’s ENDS regulation procedure has yet to be determined; until that time, ENDS will likely continue to be sold to consumers without regulation, raising serious concerns for public health.Although variations of ENDS have been on the market since at least 2007,13 little is known about the population prevalence of ENDS use in representative samples. One study examined Google searches and reported a sharp increase from 2008 to 2010 in queries, with ENDS search terms receiving more hits than nicotine patches and snus.14 Although this suggests relative increased interest, the denominators are unknown. In a European study, Etter et al.15 posted a survey in French for 34 days on a cessation Web site (http://www.stop-tabac.ch), which typically obtains about 120 000 visitors a month. Of 214 respondents, 81 eligible ENDS users reported mainly using ENDS for cessation or to avoid disturbing others; some were concerned about potential ENDS toxicity.16 Another online survey17 of first-time ENDS purchasers yielded a response proportion of only 4.5%; considering this low percentage, participants are not likely representative of ENDS purchasers and results are difficult to interpret. In a 2009 Zogby opinion poll, 59% of Americans supported FDA regulation of ENDS, with almost half (47%) saying that ENDS should be made available for people who want to quit smoking.18There are several widely cited and as yet unaddressed concerns regarding the effect of ENDS on public health. First is the concern that ENDS could act as a starter product for combustible cigarettes, especially among youths or young adults who may be attracted to their “tech” image or flavorings.3,19 Other concerns include that ENDS may lure former smokers to return to nicotine dependence, delay cessation among current smokers,2,3 serve as a dual-use product, or enable individuals to avoid smoking restrictions.19 Despite these gaps in our knowledge, there are no reliable national estimates of ENDS awareness, utilization, or harm perceptions in the peer-reviewed literature. Furthermore, other than the 2009 Zogby poll, no investigation of ENDS among nonsmokers is evident.18 This study makes an initial contribution to address some of these pressing knowledge gaps by using cross-sectional data from 2 separate surveys conducted in 2010, 1 nationally representative and 1 from the follow-up of a large cohort of current smokers and recent former smokers, to estimate ENDS awareness, use, and harm perceptions in the adult US population.     

The Debate on Regulating Menthol Cigarettes: Closing a Dangerous Loophole vs Freedom of Choice

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act exempted menthol from a flavoring additive ban, tasking the Tobacco Products Safety Advisory Committee to advise on the scientific evidence on menthol. To inform future tobacco control efforts, we examined the public debate from 2008 to 2011 over the exemption. Health advocates regularly warned of menthol’s public health damages, but inconsistently invoked the health disparities borne by African American smokers. Tobacco industry spokespeople insisted that making menthol available put them on the side of African Americans’ struggle for justice and enlisted civil rights groups to help them make that case. In future debates, public health must prioritize and invest in the leadership of communities most affected by health harms to ensure a strong, unrelenting voice in support of health equity.Menthol flavoring in tobacco remains a top public health concern.1 Because menthol makes smoking less irritating, menthol cigarettes can act as a starter product2 for adolescents: nearly half of smokers aged 12 to 17 years use menthol cigarettes compared with less than a third of smokers older than 26 years.3 Smoking menthol cigarettes is also linked with higher rates of disease4 and lower rates of cessation, especially among African American smokers.5In the 1960s, the tobacco industry began a campaign of “masterful manipulation” targeting menthols to African Americans.6 By 2008, 83% of African American smokers smoked menthol cigarettes compared with 24% of White smokers.3 African Americans bear a disproportionate share of smoking-related health consequences7,8 even though they smoke at similar rates as White Americans, suggesting that menthol cigarettes may confer greater health harms.4 Cigarettes marketed as menthol constitute more than a quarter (28%) of the US cigarette market,9 including leading brands Newport (Lorillard) and Marlboro Menthol (Philip Morris).10In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA)11 authorized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products.12,13 The law also established the Center for Tobacco Products, and Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC). Though hailed by some commentators as an important tobacco control opportunity,14 the legislation controversially excluded menthol from an immediate ban on flavoring additives in cigarettes.15 As a concession for the exemption, TPSAC’s first order was to make a recommendation about menthol to the FDA on the basis of the available scientific evidence.In March 2011, TPSAC concluded that the “removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit the public health in the United States.”16^(p225) In July 2013, the FDA released a preliminary scientific evaluation on the public health effects of menthol, confirming menthol’s harmful effects on smoking initiation and cessation, and called for public comment on the report.17 In September 2013, the FDA extended the public comment period for an additional 60 days,18 with any potential rulemaking to be announced after that time.We analyzed the policy debate over whether to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. We examined, in news coverage and committee proceedings, the arguments made by ban proponents and opponents on this question from the passage of the act through TPSAC’s review of the scientific evidence. We examined how racial disparities in African American use of and health harms from menthol cigarettes were portrayed and whether racial arguments were used in the debate.Regulatory proceedings are a significant source of information about policy debates19; investigating them has established the tobacco industry’s long history of efforts to weaken or defeat regulation of their products by health advocates.20–22 News coverage influences policy debates by setting the agenda for the public and policymakers,23–25 and framing the terms of those debates.26,27 Analyzing news coverage and regulatory documents can reveal the full range of speakers and how they present arguments that advance their divergent goals to policymakers and the public.28     

Tobacco Retailer Proximity and Density and Nicotine Dependence Among Smokers With Serious Mental Illness

Objectives. We examined the density and proximity of tobacco retailers and associations with smoking behavior and mental health in a diverse sample of 1061 smokers with serious mental illness (SMI) residing in the San Francisco Bay Area of California.Methods. Participants’ addresses were geocoded and linked with retailer licensing data to determine the distance between participants’ residence and the nearest retailer (proximity) and the number of retailers within 500-meter and 1-kilometer service areas (density).Results. More than half of the sample lived within 250 meters of a tobacco retailer. A median of 3 retailers were within 500 meters of participants’ residences, and a median of 12 were within 1 kilometer. Among smokers with SMI, tobacco retailer densities were 2-fold greater than for the general population and were associated with poorer mental health, greater nicotine dependence, and lower self-efficacy for quitting.Conclusions. Our findings provide further evidence of the tobacco retail environment as a potential vector contributing to tobacco-related disparities among individuals with SMI and suggest that this group may benefit from progressive environmental protections that restrict tobacco retail licenses and reduce aggressive point-of-sale marketing.Tobacco use among people with serious mental illness (SMI) is common and has serious health and financial costs.1 Nationally, individuals with psychiatric or addictive disorders consume 44% to 46% of cigarettes purchased and are more likely than those in the general population to be daily and heavy smokers.2,3 In one study, it was estimated that smokers with SMI spend, on average, 27% of their income on tobacco.4 Individuals with SMI suffer disproportionately from tobacco-related diseases and, as a group, have a 25-year premature mortality rate.5 Increasingly, researchers and practitioners highlight the need for more targeted prevention and intervention strategies to reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases in this vulnerable group.6,7Cigarette smoking among people with SMI reflects a complex interplay of genetic, neurobiological, cultural, and psychosocial factors.6 Studies have examined shared genetic effects between smoking and SMI,8–11 as well as associations with attention and cognition, stress and mood, and reductions in the side effects of psychotropic medications.6 In addition to individual-level risk factors, a complete understanding of smoking disparities among individuals with SMI requires examination of “upstream” social determinants of health, including social, political, and economic contexts. Accordingly, research on the etiology and maintenance of cigarette use in this disproportionately affected group has increasingly focused on systemic factors outside of an individual’s control, such as tobacco industry targeting, reduced access to smoking cessation services, and tobacco control policies.7,12 Notably, smokers with SMI are responsive to tobacco control policies that have been effective in the general population, such as smoking bans and cigarette tax increases.13–16The built environment is another important social determinant of health that has the potential to affect smoking among people with SMI. In the general population, retail availability of tobacco, which includes the number of retailers per area or population (i.e., density) and the distance to the nearest retailer (i.e., proximity) from one’s home or school, is associated with earlier smoking initiation,17,18 increased current smoking19–22 and cigarette purchases,23 and reduced smoking cessation over time.24,25 Smokers who live in neighborhoods with higher densities of tobacco retailers have greater exposure to retail advertisements and promotions, which can obstruct quit attempts by increasing cues to smoke, provoking cravings, and triggering impulse purchases.26–29 Smokers are price sensitive,30,31 and the financial costs of smoking are lower in communities with more convenient tobacco access and reduced travel time to purchase.22 Moreover, retailers and point-of-sale tobacco advertisements are more prevalent in socially and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.19,22,32–36The effects of increased tobacco availability may be particularly strong among smokers with SMI given that factors such as unreliable transportation and limited resources37 in this population may lead to a greater reliance on readily obtainable consumer goods. Furthermore, people with SMI have been targeted by the tobacco industry,12,38 and they may be especially sensitive to aggressive tobacco advertisements and promotions. Surprisingly, in spite of the public health relevance, to our knowledge no studies of the retail availability of tobacco have involved clinical samples of individuals with SMI.Our goals in this study, which included a diverse sample of adults with SMI, were to characterize the proximity (roadway distance to the nearest retailer) and density (number of retailers per acre) of tobacco retailers within 500 meters and 1 kilometer of participants’ residences and to assess whether retail availability of tobacco is associated with severity of mental illness, nicotine dependence, and readiness to quit smoking. We also evaluated whether these associations vary according to gender.We hypothesized that smokers with SMI would reside in neighborhoods with greater than average tobacco retailer density for their county area and that this neighborhood characteristic would be associated with greater severity of mental illness. Furthermore, we predicted that increased retail availability of tobacco would be associated with greater nicotine dependence and lower readiness to quit, regardless of severity of mental illness. We also examined gender differences given calls to assess such differences in tobacco control research, policy, and practice39 and recent evidence that proximity to a tobacco retailer is associated with a lower likelihood of smoking cessation among men but not women who are moderate to heavy smokers.24