Ackerman Amy, Etow Alexis, Bartel Sara, Ribisl Kurt M
ChangeLab Solutions, Oakland, CA.
Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC;
Nicotine Tob Res. 2017 Feb;19(2):133-140. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw124. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
Because higher density of tobacco retailers is associated with greater tobacco use, U.S. communities seek ways to reduce the density and number of tobacco retailers. This approach can reduce the concentration of tobacco retailers in poorer communities, limit youth exposure to tobacco advertising, and prevent misleading associations between tobacco and health messaging.
Communities can reduce the density and number of tobacco retailers by imposing minimum distance requirements between existing retailers, capping the number of retailers in a given geographic area, establishing a maximum number of retailers proportional to population size, and prohibiting sales at certain types of establishments, such as pharmacies, or within a certain distance of locations serving youth. Local governments use direct regulation, licensing, or zoning laws to enact these changes. We analyze each approach under U.S. constitutional law to assist communities in selecting and implementing one or more of these methods. There are few published legal opinions that address these strategies in the context of tobacco control. But potential constitutional challenges include violations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which protects property owners from onerous government regulations, and under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, which protect business owners from arbitrary or unreasonable regulations that do not further a legitimate government interest.
Because there is an evidentiary basis linking the density of tobacco retailers to smoking rates in a community, courts are likely to reject constitutional challenges to carefully crafted laws that reduce the number of tobacco retailers.
Our review of the relevant constitutional issues confirms that local governments have the authority to utilize laws and policies to reduce the density and number of tobacco retailers in their communities, given existing public health data. The analysis guides policy makers in crafting laws that comply with constitutional requirements by outlining the most important procedures and evidentiary justifications to use in development, implementation, and enforcement. This perspective also highlights the importance of reviewing state constitutions, statutes, and municipal codes and getting local input from attorneys and community stakeholders to assess the likely success of some methods over others.
由于烟草零售商的高密度分布与更多的烟草使用相关联，美国社区寻求降低烟草零售商密度和数量的方法。这种方法可以减少贫困社区烟草零售商的集中程度，限制青少年接触烟草广告，并防止烟草与健康信息之间产生误导性关联。
社区可以通过规定现有零售商之间的最小距离要求、限制特定地理区域内零售商的数量、根据人口规模设定零售商的最大数量，以及禁止在某些类型的场所（如药店）或在为青少年服务的场所一定距离内销售烟草，来降低烟草零售商的密度和数量。地方政府通过直接监管、许可或分区法来实施这些变革。我们依据美国宪法对每种方法进行分析，以帮助社区选择和实施这些方法中的一种或多种。在烟草控制背景下涉及这些策略的已发表法律意见很少。但潜在的宪法挑战包括违反第五修正案的征收条款，该条款保护财产所有者免受繁重的政府监管；以及违反第十四修正案的平等保护和正当程序条款，该条款保护企业主免受不促进合法政府利益的任意或不合理监管。
由于有证据表明烟草零售商的密度与社区吸烟率之间存在关联，法院可能会驳回对精心制定的减少烟草零售商数量的法律的宪法挑战。
我们对相关宪法问题的审查证实，鉴于现有的公共卫生数据，地方政府有权利用法律和政策来降低其社区内烟草零售商的密度和数量。该分析通过概述在制定、实施和执行过程中要使用的最重要程序和证据依据，指导政策制定者制定符合宪法要求的法律。这一观点还强调了审查州宪法、法规和市政法规，并从律师和社区利益相关者那里获取当地意见，以评估某些方法相对于其他方法可能取得成功的重要性。
