Low-income
How Big Tobacco Targets Low-Income Communities
Communities that are predominantly low-income are highly profitable in the eyes of Big Tobacco, so they target them in hard-hitting ways. Not only do these neighborhoods have the highest density of stores selling tobacco products,1 but in these communities the tobacco industry also offers the lowest prices on packs of cigarettes and products such as little cigars and cigarillos, which can cost less than a dollar.2 Big Tobacco works to keep an endless supply of cheap and easily accessible products flowing into these communities to keep people hooked.
Big Tobacco has even handed out free cigarettes to children living in housing projects and tried to issue tobacco discount coupons with food stamps.34 California’s working families need more opportunities, not attempts by Big Tobacco to hook children to deadly products.
The proof is in the data
Indicator | Low-income | General Population |
|---|---|---|
Adult tobacco use | ||
1. Adult Cigarette Use: Adult cigarette smoking prevalence | 9.2% The estimate is significantly higher than the California general population. | 6.1% |
| ||
2. Change in Adult Cigarette Use: Rate of change in adult cigarette smoking, 2014 to 2022 | -39.5% The 2022 estimate is significantly lower than the 2014 estimate. | -50.8% |
| ||
3. Adult Tobacco Use: Adult tobacco use prevalence (e.g. cigarettes, e-cigarettes and other vaping products, other tobacco products) | 14.4% The estimate is significantly higher than the California general population. | 11.4% |
| ||
Availability of tobacco & tobacco industry influence | ||
4. Cheapest Cigarettes: Average price for the cheapest pack of cigarettes | $6.90 | $7.11 |
| ||
5. Flavored Little Cigar Price: Average price for a single flavored little cigar/cigarillo | $0.90 The estimate is significantly lower than the California general population. | $0.97 |
| ||
6. Tobacco Stores: Density of stores selling tobacco per 100,000 residents | 119.1 The estimate is 10.0 stores per 100,000 higher than the California general population. | 74.8 |
| ||
7. Flavored Tobacco: Proportion of stores that sell flavored non-cigarette tobacco products | 84.2% | 81.8% |
| ||
8. Menthol Cigarettes: Proportion of stores that sell menthol cigarettes | 89.9% | 88.3% |
| ||
9. Tobacco Advertising: Proportion of stores that keep 90% of their storefront free from any advertising | 30.3% | 40.1% |
| ||
Secondhand smoke | ||
10. Adult Secondhand Tobacco Exposure: Proportion of adults exposed to secondhand smoke or vape | 27.1% The estimate is significantly higher than the California general population. | 24.5% |
| ||
11. Smokefree Homes: Proportion of adults with smokefree homes | 89.8% | 90.9% |
| ||
Cessation | ||
12. Quitting: Proportion of smokers who tried quitting in the last 12 months | 64.0% | 57.9% |
| ||
13. Doctor Advice to Quit: Proportion of smokers whose doctors advised them to quit | 36.0% | 49.1% |
| ||
Kick It California | Percent of Enrollees | Percent of Smokers |
14. Kick It California Enrollees: Proportion of Kick It California enrollees Medi-Cal Enrollees | 59.0% The estimate is significantly higher than the population’s make-up of California’s adult smokers. | 34.9% of smokers are Low-income |
| ||
Organizations around the state are working to fix tobacco-related health disparities.
Sustainable Health Advances in Rural Environments-SHARE
The Sustainable Health Advances in Rural Environment (SHARE) project, in partnership with the Health and Social Policy Institute (HASPI), addresses exposure to secondhand smoke in low-income housing and tribal casinos in rural communities of northern California. SHARE conducts educational community outreach, builds relationships with key stakeholders to develop smoke-free policies and engage the community to advance objectives.
A Story of Inequity
Tobacco’s impact on health disparities in California
For decades, the tobacco industry has aggressively targeted California’s diverse communities with predatory practices. Internal documents from Big Tobacco outline their strategies – many of which are shocking attempts to peddle deadly products by way of product discounts and manipulative advertising. They even gave away free products to youth in the past. These tactics masquerade as support for communities under the guise of cultural celebration.
Unfortunately, the tactics have worked. Big Tobacco aggressively targeted communities and, as a result, some populations have higher rates of tobacco use, experience greater secondhand smoke exposure at work and at home, and have higher rates of tobacco-related disease than the general population.1
Addressing tobacco-related health inequities is key to California’s efforts to fight tobacco, our state’s number one cause of preventable death and disease.2 Tobacco use, pricing, and its impact across California were analyzed where significant disparities were found across various populations. See how Big Tobacco affects each community in the Nation’s most diverse state.