OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the combined effects on California cigarette consumption of an additional 50 cent per pack state tax imposed by Proposition 10 of January 1999 and a 45 cent per pack increase in cigarette prices stemming from the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of November 1998. METHODS: We used quarterly cigarette sales data for the period 1984-2002 to estimate a time-series intervention model adjusting for seasonal variations and time trend. RESULTS: Over the period 1999 through 2002, the combined effect was to reduce cigarette consumption by 2.4 packs per capita per quarter (1.3 billion packs total over the 4-year period) and to raise state tax revenues by $2.1 billion. These effects were similar to the effects of a 25 cent per pack tax increase enacted by Proposition 99 a decade earlier, although with decreased relative effectiveness as measured by percentage of reduction in cigarette consumption divided by percentage of increase in taxation (-0.44 vs -0.60). CONCLUSIONS: A major increase in price through taxation and the MSA provided a strong economic disincentive for smokers in a state with a low smoking prevalence. This effect could be reinforced if part of the MSA payments were devoted to tobacco control programs.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the combined effects on California cigarette consumption of an additional 50 cent per pack state tax imposed by Proposition 10 of January 1999 and a 45 cent per pack increase in cigarette prices stemming from the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of November 1998. METHODS: We used quarterly cigarette sales data for the period 1984-2002 to estimate a time-series intervention model adjusting for seasonal variations and time trend. RESULTS: Over the period 1999 through 2002, the combined effect was to reduce cigarette consumption by 2.4 packs per capita per quarter (1.3 billion packs total over the 4-year period) and to raise state tax revenues by $2.1 billion. These effects were similar to the effects of a 25 cent per pack tax increase enacted by Proposition 99 a decade earlier, although with decreased relative effectiveness as measured by percentage of reduction in cigarette consumption divided by percentage of increase in taxation (-0.44 vs -0.60). CONCLUSIONS: A major increase in price through taxation and the MSA provided a strong economic disincentive for smokers in a state with a low smoking prevalence. This effect could be reinforced if part of the MSA payments were devoted to tobacco control programs.
Authors: Lyzette Blanco; Liesl A Nydegger; Kari-Lyn K Sakuma; Elisa K Tong; Martha M White; Dennis R Trinidad Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Lori Pbert; Jane Zapka; Denise G Jolicoeur; Mary Jo White; Karin Valentine Goins; George Reed; Judith K Ockene Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2011-05-13
Authors: John D Prochaska; James N Burdine; Kendra Bigsby; Marcia G Ory; Joseph R Sharkey; Kenneth R McLeroy; Nelda Mier; Brian Colwell Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 2.830