Background

In June 2018, San Francisco voters upheld the first comprehensive prohibition on sales of flavoured tobacco products (all products including menthol, everywhere in the city with no exceptions).

Methods

This paper used data collected by the San Francisco Department of Public Health as part of its implementation and enforcement of San Francisco's city-wide ban on the sale of flavoured tobacco products. Every licensed tobacco retailer was visited and inspected. The San Francisco Department of Public Health and volunteers conducted an educational campaign from September 2018 to December 2018, including emailing all licensed tobacco retailers about the law, mailing a fact sheet poster, conducting four listening sessions and visiting permitted tobacco retailers to educate them about the law and solicit questions.

Results

Compliance inspections started in December 2018, which found that compliance was 17%. Compliance increased in January 2019 and averaged 80% between January 2019 and December 2019. After the phase-in period, all retailers were visited as part of routine inspections. This effort resulted in 80% compliance.

Conclusion

Including retailer education prior to enforcement can result in compliance with a comprehensive ban on the sale of menthol and other flavoured tobacco products.

Introduction

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) individuals use tobacco at disproportionately high rates but are as likely as straight tobacco users to want to quit and to use quitlines. Little is known about the demographics and geographic distribution of LGBTQ quitline participants, their engagement with services, or their long-term outcomes.

Aims and methods

Californians (N = 333 429) who enrolled in a statewide quitline 2010-2022 were asked about their sexual and gender minority (SGM) status and other baseline characteristics. All were offered telephone counseling. A subset (n = 19 431) was followed up at seven months. Data were analyzed in 2023 by SGM status (LGBTQ vs. straight) and county type (rural vs. urban).

Results

Overall, 7.0% of participants were LGBTQ, including 7.4% and 5.4% of urban and rural participants, respectively. LGBTQ participants were younger than straight participants but had similar cigarette consumption. Fewer LGBTQ participants reported a physical health condition (42.1% vs. 48.4%) but more reported a behavioral health condition (71.1% vs. 54.5%; both p's < .001). Among both LGBTQ and straight participants, nearly 9 in 10 chose counseling and both groups completed nearly three sessions on average. The groups had equivalent 30-day abstinence rates (24.5% vs. 23.2%; p = .263). Similar patterns were seen in urban and rural subgroups.

Conclusions

LGBTQ tobacco users engaged with and appeared to benefit from a statewide quitline even though it was not LGBTQ community-based. A quitline with staff trained in LGBTQ cultural competence can help address the high prevalence of tobacco use in the LGBTQ community and reach members wherever they live.

Implications

This study describes how participants of a statewide tobacco quitline broke down by sexual orientation and gender. It compares participants both by SGM status and by type of county to provide a more complete picture of quitline participation both in urban areas where LGBTQ community-based cessation programs may exist and in rural areas where they generally do not. To our knowledge, it is the first study to compare LGBTQ and straight participants on their use of quitline services and quitting aids, satisfaction with services received, and rates of attempting quitting and achieving prolonged abstinence from smoking.