The prevalence of tobacco use among urban African American persons aged 18 to 24 years not enrolled in college is alarmingly high and a challenge for smoking cessation initiatives. Recent data from inner-city neighborhoods in Baltimore, Md, indicate that more than 60% of young adults smoke cigarettes. We sought to describe community-level factors contributing to this problem. Data from focus groups and surveys indicate that the sale and acquisition of “loosies” are ubiquitous and normative and may contribute to the high usage and low cessation rates.

Increasing rates of smoking and low rates of cessation in young adults (aged 18–24 years) have been identified as “growing health concerns.”1 Of particular concern are those young adults who are not enrolled in college; who are unemployed, underemployed, or economically disadvantaged; and who are a target market of the tobacco industry.2,3 The overall decline in smoking rates in most of the US population has been attributed to a comprehensive approach that includes environmental and policy approaches (e.g., cigarette taxes and smoking restrictions).48 However, because these approaches have not been implemented equally across all communities and population subgroups, some groups are more vulnerable and less likely to want to quit smoking.911

Currently, little is known about environmental factors in urban communities that either facilitate smoking or act as barriers to cessation. Access to cigarettes and sales of single cigarettes—“loosies”—may be 2 of these factors.12 We examined the (1) availability of cigarettes, (2) sales of single cigarettes, and (3) positive social norms toward smoking. We have described these factors in African American young adults who were attending employment training and educational programs in inner-city Baltimore, Md.

Data Collection
Focus groups.

Participants were recruited by program directors. Four focus groups were conducted with 28 young adults (20 men and 8 women): 23 smokers and 5 nonsmokers who were attending employment training and educational programs in Baltimore. Focus groups were gender heterogeneous but homogeneous as to smoking status, with 3 groups of smokers and 1 group of nonsmokers. The low number of nonsmokers in the programs required that the nonsmoking group contained both former smokers and individuals who have never smoked. Written consent was obtained before starting the focus groups, and participants received an incentive of $20. Groups were led by an experienced African American focus group moderator. All focus group discussions were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Focus group domains included social norms around tobacco use, tobacco acquisition practices, smoking and socializing, smoking restrictions, and tobacco advertising.


The directors of the employment training and educational programs used flyers, word of mouth, and telephone calls to recruit a convenience sample from their roster of program participants. Program participants were required to reside in selected zip codes in the city that were designated as under-served communities. Focus group participants were excluded from taking the survey. The investigators administered the surveys in a group setting to ensure uniformity of data collection and to maximize survey completion rates. Written consent was obtained, and participants received $20. The survey instrument was adapted from several national survey instruments; additional topics and wording of questions were derived from an analysis of the focus group transcripts. The topics surveyed included prevalence of use by current and former smokers, age at initiation, smoking behaviors, buying behaviors, and attitudes and social norms. Of special interest was the purchasing and selling of single cigarettes.


We analyzed all focus groups with Atlas.ti version 3 (Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) qualitative software to ascertain emergent themes. We used SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) to complete a statistical analysis of the survey data with χ2 tests and t tests to assess bivariate associations between gender or smoking status and demographic characteristics, smoking behavior, cigarette acquisition behavior, attitudes, and perceptions. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the factors associated with being a current smoker and the acquisition of single cigarettes. These factors included demographic characteristics, cigarette acquisition behavior (places and people from whom participants bought cigarettes, including other behaviors such as bumming, pooling money, and selling cigarettes), and single cigarette acquisition behavior (where and from whom).

Focus Groups

Emergent thematic patterns, which were consistent across all 4 groups, pertained to buying and sharing single cigarettes, smoking and socializing, and smoking as a normative behavior. Both smokers and nonsmokers perceived smoking as normal, very common, and essentially unproblematic. Participants described facing relatively few smoking restrictions and reported that single cigarettes were easily accessible.

Demographics and smoking patterns.

The survey was completed by 156 young adults, 60% of whom were men; 70% reported less than high-school education. Sixty-two percent reported being current smokers, and 63% smoked 10 cigarettes or fewer per day; 15% smoked 1 pack a day. On average, current smokers had started smoking at age 13.6 years, and all reported smoking Newport cigarettes. Factors associated with being a current smoker were having less than a high-school education (odds ratio [OR] = 3.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51, 6.74) and living in a home in which smoking was permitted (OR = 3.34; 95% CI = 1.65, 6.79). No statistically significant differences were observed by gender for any of the demographic or smoking status variables.

Cigarette Acquisition

Table 1 describes patterns of cigarette acquisition. Most respondents bought single cigarettes every day and also witnessed others selling single cigarettes on the street in many different locations throughout the community. Widely reported reasons for buying single cigarettes were convenience and lower cost. Women were more likely than men to buy cigarettes by the pack and to buy them near their residence, and women were less likely than men to buy from friends. Figure 1 represents the attitudes toward and perceptions of the availability of single cigarettes and smoking-related issues by smoking status and documents the acceptance of smoking and the availability of single cigarettes in this community. Factors associated with acquisition of single cigarettes were seeing people every day selling single cigarettes (OR = 3.89; 95% CI = 1.24, 12.19), buying cigarettes from a bar or club in the past month (OR = 4.39; 95% CI = 1.50, 12.88), and being likely to find single cigarettes sold outside corner stores (OR = 3.64; 95% CI = 1.06, 12.53).

Smoking cessation strategies need to take into consideration environmental influences, such as the sale of single cigarettes, particularly to inner-city African American young adults. This study found that the sale of single cigarettes was more pervasive than previously reported and that most of the sales occurred on the street. This easy and affordable way to purchase cigarettes from street vendors and stores undermines tax policies, promotes smoking as a normative behavior, and may contribute to high smoking rates in some inner-city communities.13 Although the US Food and Drug Administration attempted to eradicate the legal and illegal sale of single cigarettes in 1996, current laws differ from state to state, and enforcement is lax.14

Attitudes and behaviors of these young adults, both smokers and nonsmokers, regarding the sale of single cigarettes in the community and the perception that everyone smokes reflect the normative nature of tobacco use and may explain the lack of interest in quitting. Other influences associated with increased prevalence of smoking and lack of interest in quitting in this population are industry-targeted advertising as well as marketing and promotion campaigns that permeate the physical and social environments of these young adults, including special promotions at bars and clubs.3,15,16 The tobacco industry considers working-class young adults a critical market, especially to expand the sales of key brands such as Newport, a mentholated cigarette, and Black and Mild, a small cigar.1,17,18 Newport cigarettes are heavily advertised in African American communities.19,20 This may account for the brand loyalty found in our survey: 100% of the smokers indicated that they would smoke only Newport cigarettes. In addition to cigarettes, Black and Mild cigars are sold individually for less than $1 each; this may contribute to their use by young adults with modest available funds.18

The relation between environmental factors and smoking behavior needs more research because the evidence is of an ecological nature.16 The ultimate goal of this research is to design community-level initiatives promoting smoking cessation in partnership with the target population, community leaders, policymakers, and academia to reduce tobacco use communitywide.

TABLE 1— Acquisition of Cigarettes by African American Current Smokers Aged 18 to 24 Years: Baltimore, Md, 2005–2006
TABLE 1— Acquisition of Cigarettes by African American Current Smokers Aged 18 to 24 Years: Baltimore, Md, 2005–2006
 Total, % (N = 96)Women, % (n = 37)Men, % (n = 59)
Bought cigarettes by the pack during the last month*74.791.963.8
Bought cigarettes near where they
Bought cigarettes at a
    Supermarket, drugstore, gas station83.286.581.0
    Convenience or corner store85.191.980.7
    Bar or club56.856.856.9
Bought cigarettes from
Borrowed or bummed cigarettes71.664.975.9
Pooled money to buy cigarettes53.151.454.2
Sold cigarettes39.645.235.5
Bought single cigarettes during the last month76.873.079.3
Reasons for buying single cigarettes
    Less expensive58.958.858.9
    Did not have enough money48.448.648.3
    Trying to cut back44.150.040.4
    Prevents me from getting started or addicted21.318.922.8
Saw people on the street selling single cigarettes every day during the last month (n = 156)a71.864.576.6
Who they have seen selling single cigarettes on the street (n = 156)a
    Drug dealers24.829.521.7
Likely to find single cigarettes being sold (n = 156)a
    Near the subway83.680.085.9
    Outside of corner or grocery store81.278.782.8
    Outside of bars and clubs71.364.475.8
    Outside of schools25.222.027.2

aAmong the full population (smokers and nonsmokers).

* P < .05 for the comparison by gender (χ2).

This work was supported by the Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund and the American Legacy Foundation (grant 5092).

We appreciate the assistance of the Community Building in Partnership Inc and the participants in the Employment and Training Programs. Special thanks to Priscilla Belen for her guidance in establishing the community advisory committee and Atanaska Dineva for her help with article preparation.

Human Participant Protection The study protocol was approved by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health institutional review board.


1. Lawrence D, Graber JE, Mills SL, Meissner HI, Warnecke R. Smoking cessation interventions in U.S. racial/ethnic minority populations: an assessment of the literature. Prev Med. 2003;36:204–216. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Fagan P, Backinger C, Lawrence D, Noel C, McNeil T. Smoking among young adults ages 18-30. Presented at: Tobacco Control Investigators Meeting: Synthesizing the Research for the Public’s Health; June 2–4, 2004; San Diego, Calif. Google Scholar
3. Ling PM, Glantz SA. Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults: evidence from industry documents. Am J Public Health. 2002;92: 908–916. LinkGoogle Scholar
4. US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2004). National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Co-Sponsored Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (2001–2002). Available at: Accessed September 1, 2006. Google Scholar
5. Sorensen G, Barbeau E, Hunt MK, Emmons K. Reducing social disparities in tobacco use: a social-contextual model for reducing tobacco use among blue-collar workers. Am J Public Health. 2004;94: 230–239. LinkGoogle Scholar
6. Stillman F, Hartman A, Graubard B, Gilpin E, Murray DM, Gibson JT. Evaluation of the American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST): a report of outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95: 1681–1691. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. National Cancer Institute. ASSIST: Shaping the Future of Tobacco Prevention and Control. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 2005. Tobacco Control Monograph 16. Google Scholar
8. World Health Organization (WHO). Policy Recommendations for Smoking Cessation and Treatment of Tobacco Dependence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003. Google Scholar
9. Ellickson PL, Orlando M, Tucker JS, Klein DJ. From adolescence to young adulthood: racial/ethnic disparities in smoking. Am J Public Health. 2004;94: 293–299. LinkGoogle Scholar
10. Griesler PC, Kandel DB. Ethnic differences in correlates of adolescent cigarette smoking. J Adolesc Health. 1998;23:167–168. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Chen V. Smoking and the health gap in minorities. Ann Epidemiol. 1993;3:159–164. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Novak SP, Reardon SF, Raudenbush SW, Buka SL. Retail tobacco outlet density and youth cigarette smoking: a propensity-modeling approach. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:670–676. LinkGoogle Scholar
13. Hyland A, Higbee C, Li Q, et al. Access to low-taxed cigarettes deters smoking cessation attempts. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:994–995. LinkGoogle Scholar
14. Regulations restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents, 61 Federal Register 168 (1996). Google Scholar
15. Sepe E, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Smooth moves: tobacco bar and nightclub promotions target young adults. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:75–78. LinkGoogle Scholar
16. Lantz PM. Smoking on the rise among young adults: implications for research and policy. Tob Control. 2003;12(suppl 1):i60–i70. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Barbeau EM, Leavy-Sperounis A, Balbach ED. Smoking, social class, and gender: what can public health learn from the tobacco industry about disparities in smoking? Tob Control. 2004;13:115–120. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Soldz S, Huyser DJ, Dorsey E. Youth preferences for cigar brands: rates of use and characteristics of users. Tob Control. 2003;12:155–160. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Luke D, Esmundo E, Bloom Y. Smoke signs: patterns of tobacco billboard advertising in metropolitan region. Tob Control. 2000;9:16–23. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. O’Connor RJ. What brands are U.S. smokers under 25 choosing? Tob Control. 2005;14:213–215. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar


No related items




Frances A. Stillman, EdD, Lee Bone, MPH, BSN, Erika Avila-Tang, PhD, MHS, Katherine Smith, PhD, Norman Yancey, Calvin Street, and Kerry OwingsFrances A. Stillman and Erika Avila-Tang are with the Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md. Lee Bone and Katherine Smith are with the Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Norman Yancey is with the Community Building in Partnership, Baltimore. Calvin Street is with the YO! Historic East Baltimore Community Action Coalition, Baltimore. Kerry Owings is with the YO! Westside Center, Baltimore. “Barriers to Smoking Cessation in Inner-City African American Young Adults”, American Journal of Public Health 97, no. 8 (August 1, 2007): pp. 1405-1408.

PMID: 17600247