Do you sell tobacco products? Then you must comply with these federal laws.

On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.

  • Check photo ID of everyone appearing under age 27 who attempts to purchase cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
  • Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to anyone age 18 or older.
  • Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco in a direct, face to face exchange.
  • Do NOT break open cigarette or smokeless tobacco packages to sell products in smaller amounts.
  • Do NOT sell cigarette packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
  • Do NOT sell single cigarettes, also called “loosies”.
  • Do NOT give away free samples of cigarettes.
  • Do NOT give away free samples of smokeless tobacco except from a “qualified adult only facility.”
  • Do NOT sell flavored cigarettes or flavored cigarette tobacco (other than menthol).

This is only a summary of the laws. For the full list of federal laws, visit
Retailers must also follow state tobacco laws, even if they are more restrictive. For example, in some states the minimum age is 19.
The sale of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco through vending machines and self service displays are allowed in adult only facilities where no person younger than 18 is permitted to enter. Please note that tobacco product vending machines are banned in some states.

Why Are These Laws Important?

These laws are designed to make regulated tobacco products less accessible and less attractive to youth. Every day nearly 3,800 kids try their first cigarette and 1,000 kids become daily smokers. Many of these children will become addicted before they are old enough to understand the risks, and they will ultimately die of tobacco related diseases. As a retailer, you play an important role in protecting children and adolescents by complying with the law.

Join Us in Breaking the Chain of Tobacco Addiction

Join the FDA retailer education campaign, Break the Chain of Tobacco Addiction. Visit for free training, tools, tips, resources, and contests. Visit the FDA Center for Tobacco Products Clearinghouse to order eye catching promotional materials including the Break the Chain of Tobacco Addiction campaign materials.

Some people using foodbanks buy cigarettes instead of food – telegraph

Cigarettes online Blog Archive E smoking 101: electronic cigarette reviews and beginner guide

There are many disturbing facts and accounts in the Feeding Britain report on foodbanks and the financial problems of Britain s poorest. Admirably balanced and non partisan, the thoughtful, considered response it s had from most politicians is well deserved.

Still, there s one aspect of the report that seems a little under explored. Here s a quote from the document

“The other force at work is the addictions that many individuals and families have, but which particularly sharply affects the budgeting of low income families. We refer here to the size of income in some families going on drugs, tobacco and gambling.”

And another

” tackling these serious addictions is as crucial for the overall health of our society as it is in restoring a sense of dignity and control individuals have over their own lives and their tackling of these serious addictions is as crucial for the overall health of our society as it is in restoring a sense of dignity and control individuals have over their own lives and their own budgets. We make recommendations here on how food can be used as a way of kick starting a recovery process for individuals who find themselves in such desperate situations.”

Related Articles

  • Poor going hungry because they can’t cook, says Tory peer

    08 Dec 2014

  • Families go hungry as supermarkets send millions of tonnes of food for landfill

    08 Dec 2014

  • Is Britain back on the Road to Wigan Pier?

    04 Dec 2014

In other words, let s make sure poor people are eating properly, then we can help them smoke and drink and gamble less.

On that basis, the report then largely ignores the question of spending on booze and fags and gambling. While it discusses the share of household income being spent on food and non alcoholic drinks, utilities and the rest, it has almost nothing else to say about how much is spent on drink and tobacco.

I can understand why. There are too many people who want to focus on the issue in an attempt to argue or just imply that poor people are poor because they chose to be, that they go to food banks because they spend money on the “wrong” things instead of food. My best guess is that the authors didn t want to get into that debate, so they ignored the question.

To be clear, I don t want to make any such argument, or imply any such thing. I suspect some people will glance at the headline of this piece and conclude “Oh look, a heartless Telegraph toff sneering at poor people for smoking.” But that is not what I m about here. I offer no judgement on poor people who smoke if I was in the dire straits described in the Feeding Britain report, I suspect I d want the comfort of a cigarette, or any other earthly pleasure I could get my hands on. And for all that non smokers like me can be prone to look down on weak willed smokers, we should acknowledge that this is a monstrously addictive drug, and remember there but for the grace of God smoke I.

Still, facts are facts whether or not we find them convenient or comfortable. And the fact is that some poor people do spend some of their money on things like tobacco and alcohol. And obviously, a pound spent on cigarettes cannot be spent on food. For reference, the average packet of 20 cigarettes now costs f8.46. So surely a fully rounded look at the issues of food and poverty should include some analysis of spending on such things, shouldn’t it?

Let s start with the basics.

Because the price of goods like alcohol and tobacco is, broadly speaking, fixed, consumption of those goods is regressive a poor person who buys 20 fags a day will spend a much greater share of their income than a rich one. The IFS has estimated that people in the lowest income group spend roughly twice as much of their income on tobacco and alcohol than those in the richest.

There s also some evidence that poorer people are more likely to do things like smoke, and when they do, to smoke more than richer people

I m using 2013 ONS household expenditure data here, and using occupational group as a proxy for income not perfect, but the best I can find today.

The same data show that unemployed people smoke much more than those with jobs

Then there s drink. Poor people drink less often, as it happens

Smoking in particular is worth focussing on here, not least because the Feeding Britain report offers this thought

“A family earning f21,000 a year, for example, where both parents smoke 20 cigarettes a day will spend a quarter of their income on tobacco. Even if people buy illicit tobacco they will still spend 15% of their total income on tobacco. Budgeting support is terribly important, but budgetary support alone is often not enough to equip families to kick their addictive habits when addiction is being fed and defended by some very powerful lobbies.”

Read that again. Some poor families may be spending a quarter of their income on tobacco. A quarter.

That figure is actually even higher than an estimate produced last year by the Institute for Economic Affairs last year, which said that the average smoker from the poorest fifth of households spends between 18 and 22 per cent of their disposable income on cigarettes.

(The IEA also noted that tax on these cigarettes consumes 15 to 17 per cent of those families incomes. A cynic would note that central government therefore has a financial disincentive to reduce tobacco consumption.)

Surely any serious attempt to address food poverty should have more to say about this issue than vague accusations about “powerful lobbies” exploiting the poor? Surely any move to ensure that poor people can and do spend more money on good food has to include an attempt to reduce the amount they spend on tobacco? Surely it s not good enough to say that we have to sort out the food problem before we can sort out the tobacco problem? Because the basic economic fact is that tobacco is part of the food problem.

Again, just to repeat the caveat, I don t raise this to criticise or denigrate those on low incomes who spend money on tobacco. I raise it because any attempt to discuss the problems of those people that doesn t address their full spending patterns is incomplete and likely to fail.

If you care about poor people and want them to eat better, get them to spend less on smoking. Does that mean banning cigarettes? Taxing them even more? Or actually cutting the tax to make them cheaper? Or doing much, much more to help and encourage them to quit? There may well be an argument to be made for all of those options, and others besides. Sadly though, that’s not part of the foodbank debate today.