Tax Avoidance, Smoking Behavior, and Menthol Cigarettes

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Rozema
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Menthol Cigarettes

The Economics of Smoking Prevention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip DeCicca ◽  
Donald S. Kenkel ◽  
Michael F. Lovenheim ◽  
Erik Nesson
Keyword(s):  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Secondhand Smoke ◽  
Smoking Prevalence ◽  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smoking Prevention ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cigarette Taxation ◽  
Developed Nations

Smoking prevention has been a key component of health policy in developed nations for over half a century. Public policies to reduce the physical harm attributed to cigarette smoking, both externally and to the smoker, include cigarette taxation, smoking bans, and anti-smoking campaigns, among other publicly conceived strategies to reduce smoking initiation among the young and increase smoking cessation among current smokers. Despite the policy intensity of the past two decades, there remains debate regarding whether, and to what extent, the observed reductions in smoking are due to such policies. Indeed, while smoking rates in developed countries have fallen substantially over the past half century, it is difficult to separate secular trends toward greater investment in health from actual policy impacts. In other words, smoking rates might have declined in the absence of these anti-smoking policies, consistent with trends toward other healthy behaviors. These trends also may reflect longer-run responses to policies enacted many years ago, which also poses challenges for identification of causal policy effects. While smoking rates fell dramatically over this period, the gradient in smoking prevalence has become tilted toward lower socioeconomic status (SES) individuals. That is, cigarette smoking exhibited a relatively flat SES gradient 50 years ago, but today that gradient is much steeper: relatively less-educated and lower-income individuals are many times more likely to be cigarette smokers than their more highly educated and higher-income counterparts. Over time, consumers also have become less price-responsive, which has rendered cigarette taxation a less effective policy tool with which to reduce smoking. The emergence of tax avoidance strategies such as casual cigarette smuggling (e.g., cross-tax border purchasing) and purchasing from tax-free outlets (e.g., Native reservations in Canada and the United States) have likely contributed to reduced price sensitivity. Such behaviors have been of particular interest in the last decade as cigarette taxation has roughly doubled cigarette prices in many developed nations, creating often large incentives to avoid taxation for those who continue to smoke. Perhaps due to the perception that traditional policy has been ineffective, recent anti-smoking policy has focused more on the direct regulation of cigarettes and smoking behavior. The main non-price-based policy has been the rise of smoke-free air laws, which restrict smoking behavior in workplaces, restaurants, and bars. These regulations can reduce smoking prevalence and exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers. However, they may also shift the location of smoking in ways that increase secondhand smoke exposure, particularly among children. Other non-tax regulations focus on the packaging (e.g., the movement towards plain packaging), advertising, and product attributes of cigarettes (e.g., nicotine content, cigarette flavor, etc.), and most are attempts to reduce smoking by making it less desirable to the actual or potential smoker. Perhaps not surprisingly, research in the economics of smoking prevention has followed these policy developments, though strong interest remains in both the evaluation of price- and non-price policies as well as any offsetting responses among smokers that may undermine the effectiveness of these regulations. While the past two decades have provided fertile ground for research in the economics of smoking, we expect this to continue, as governments search for more innovative and effective ways to reduce smoking.

scholarly journals Association of Ontario’s Ban on Menthol Cigarettes With Smoking Behavior 1 Month After Implementation

2018 ◽  
Vol 178 (5) ◽  
pp. 710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Chaiton ◽  
Robert Schwartz ◽  
Joanna E. Cohen ◽  
Eric Soule ◽  
Thomas Eissenberg
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Menthol Cigarettes

scholarly journals Effects of Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes on Smoking Behavior and Biomarkers of Exposure in Menthol and Non-menthol Smokers

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S63-S72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel L Denlinger-Apte ◽  
Michael Kotlyar ◽  
Joseph S Koopmeiners ◽  
Jennifer W Tidey ◽  
Xianghua Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recent Trial ◽  
Toxicant Exposure ◽  
Nicotine Content ◽  
Biomarkers Of Exposure ◽  
Menthol Cigarettes ◽  
Multivariable Regression ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Nicotine Reduction

Abstract Introduction Because 30% of cigarettes sold in the United States are characterized as menthol cigarettes, it is important to understand how menthol preference may affect the impact of a nicotine reduction policy. Methods In a recent trial, non-treatment-seeking smokers were randomly assigned to receive very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC; 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) or normal nicotine cigarettes (NNC; 15.5 mg/g) for 20 weeks. On the basis of preference, participants received menthol or non-menthol cigarettes. We conducted multivariable regression analyses to examine whether menthol preference moderated the effects of nicotine content on cigarettes per day (CPD), breath carbon monoxide (CO), urinary total nicotine equivalents (TNE), urinary 2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid (CEMA), and abstinence. Results At baseline, menthol smokers (n = 346) reported smoking fewer CPD (14.9 vs. 19.2) and had lower TNE (52.8 vs. 71.6 nmol/mg) and CO (17.7 vs. 20.5 ppm) levels than non-menthol smokers (n = 406; ps < .05). At week 20, significant interactions indicated that menthol smokers had smaller treatment effects than non-menthol smokers for CPD (–6.4 vs. –9.3), TNE (ratio of geometric means, 0.22 vs. 0.10) and CEMA (ratio, 0.56 vs. 0.37; ps < .05), and trended toward a smaller treatment effect for CO (–4.5 vs. –7.3 ppm; p = .06). Odds ratios for abstinence at week 20 were 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8 to 4.4) for menthol and 9.11 (95% CI = 3.3 to 25.2) for non-menthol VLNC smokers (p = .02) relative to the NNC condition. Conclusions Although menthol smokers experienced reductions in smoking, toxicant exposure, and increases in quitting when using VLNC cigarettes, the magnitude of change was smaller than that observed for non-menthol smokers. Implications Results of this analysis suggest that smokers of menthol cigarettes may respond to a nicotine reduction policy with smaller reductions in smoking rates and toxicant exposure than would smokers of non-menthol cigarettes.

Personality, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer:

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 102-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Amelang ◽  
Petra Hasselbach ◽  
Til Stürmer
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Behavioral Control ◽  
Smoking Behavior ◽  
Type A Behavior ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Emotional Lability ◽  
Prevalent Disease ◽  
Incident Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract. Ten years ago a sample of N = 5.133 male and female subjects (age 28-74) responded to questionnaires including scales for personality, life style, work stress as well as questions on prevalent disease. We now report on the follow-up regarding self-reported incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer. During a mean follow-up of 10 years, 257 participants had died. Of those alive, N = 4.010 (82%) participated in the follow-up. Of these, 120 and 180 persons reported incident cardiovascular disease and cancer, respectively. The incidence of cardiovascular disease could be significantly predicted by the personality factors “Emotional Lability”, “Behavioral Control” and “Type-A-Behavior” as well as by the “Rationality/Antemotionality”-scale according to Grossarth-Maticek. After controlling for age, gender and smoking behavior only the significant effect of “Emotional Lability” remained and the predictors according to Grossarth-Maticek had no incremental validity. Cancer could not be predicted by any personality factors.

Review of Studies and Issues in Smoking Behavior.

1970 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-76
Author(s):  
ANTHONY DAVIDS
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Behavior
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document