Are State legislatures responding to public opinion when allocating funds for tobacco control programs?

This study explored the factors associated with state-level allocations to tobacco-control programs. The primary research question was whether public sentiment regarding tobacco control was a significant factor in the states' 2001 budget decisions. In addition to public opinion, several additional political and economic measures were considered. Significant associations were found between our outcome, state-level tobacco-control funding per capita, and key variables of interest including public opinion, amount of tobacco settlement received, the party affiliation of the governor, the state's smoking rate, excise tax revenue received, and whether the state was a major producer of tobacco. The findings from this study supported our hypothesis that states with citizens who favor more restrictive indoor air policies allocate more to tobacco control. Effective public education to change public opinion and the cultural norms surrounding smoking may affect political decisions and, in turn, increase funding for crucial public health programs.

Burning a hole in the budget: tobacco spending and its crowd-out of other goods.

Smoking is an expensive habit. Smoking households spend, on average, more than $US1000 annually on cigarettes. When a family member quits, in addition to the former smoker's improved long-term health, families benefit because savings from reduced cigarette expenditures can be allocated to other goods. For households in which some members continue to smoke, smoking expenditures crowd-out other purchases, which may affect other household members, as well as the smoker. We empirically analyse how expenditures on tobacco crowd-out consumption of other goods, estimating the patterns of substitution and complementarity between tobacco products and other categories of household expenditure. We use the Consumer Expenditure Survey data for the years 1995-2001, which we complement with regional price data and state cigarette prices. We estimate a consumer demand system that includes several main expenditure categories (cigarettes, food, alcohol, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care) and controls for socioeconomic variables and other sources of observable heterogeneity. Descriptive data indicate that, comparing smokers to nonsmokers, smokers spend less on housing. Results from the demand system indicate that as the price of cigarettes rises, households increase the quantity of food purchased, and, in some samples, reduce the quantity of apparel and housing purchased.

Psychiatric correlates of snuff and chewing tobacco use.

Compared to the association between cigarette smoking and psychiatric disorders, relatively little is known about the relationship between smokeless tobacco use and psychiatric disorders. To identify the psychiatric correlates of smokeless tobacco use, the analysis used a national representative sample from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) wave 1. Smokeless tobacco use was classified as exclusive snuff use, exclusive chewing tobacco, and dual use of both snuff and chewing tobacco at some time in the smokeless tobacco user's life. Lifetime psychiatric disorders were obtained via structured diagnostic interviews. The results show that the prevalence of lifetime exclusive snuff use, exclusive chewing tobacco, and dual use of both snuff and chewing tobacco was 2.16%, 2.52%, and 2.79%, respectively. After controlling for sociodemographic variables and cigarette smoking, the odds of exclusive chewing tobacco in persons with panic disorder and specific phobia were 1.53 and 1.41 times the odds in persons without those disorders, respectively. The odds of exclusive snuff use, exclusive chewing tobacco, and dual use of both products for individuals with alcohol use disorder were 1.97, 2.01, and 2.99 times the odds for those without alcohol use disorder, respectively. Respondents with cannabis use disorder were 1.44 times more likely to use snuff exclusively than those without cannabis use disorder. Respondents with inhalant/solvent use disorder were associated with 3.33 times the odds of exclusive chewing tobacco. In conclusion, this study highlights the specific links of anxiety disorder, alcohol, cannabis, and inhalant/solvent use disorders with different types of smokeless tobacco use.

Empirical measurement of illicit tobacco trade in the Philippines.

Cigarette smuggling reduces the price of cigarettes, thwarts youth access restrictions, reduces government revenue, and undercuts the ability of taxes to reduce consumption. The tobacco industry often opposes increases to tobacco taxes on the claim that greater taxes induce more smuggling. To date, little is known about the magnitude of smuggling in the Philippines. his information is necessary to effectively address illicit trade and to measure the impacts of tax changes and the introduction of secure tax markings on illicit trade. This study employs two gap discrepancy methods to estimate the magnitude of illicit trade in cigarettes for the Philippines between 1994 and 2009. First, domestic consumption is compared with tax-paid sales to measure the consumption of illicit cigarettes. Second, imports recorded by the Philippines are compared with exports to the Philippines by trade partners to measure smuggling. Domestic consumption fell short of tax-paid sales for all survey years. The magnitude of these differences and a comparison with a prevalence survey for 2009 suggest a high level of survey under-reporting of smoking. In the late 1990s and the mid 2000s, the Philippines experienced two sharp declines in trade discrepancies, from a high of $750 million in 1995 to a low of $133.7 million in 2008. Discrepancies composed more than one-third of the domestic market in 1995, but only 10 percent in 2009. Hong Kong, Singapore, and China together account for more than 80 percent of the cumulative discrepancies over the period and 74 percent of the discrepancy in 2009. The presence of large discrepancies supports the need to implement an effective tax marking and tobacco track and trace system to reduce illicit trade and support tax collection. The absence of a relation between tax changes and smuggling suggests that potential increases in the excise tax should not be discouraged by illicit trade. Finally, the identification of specific trade partners as primary sources for illicit trade may facilitate targeted efforts in cooperation with these governments to reduce illicit trade.