John A Tauras1. 1. Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL 60607-7121, USA. tauras@uic.edu
Abstract
AIMS: This paper describes patterns of racial and ethnic cigarette use in the United States and discusses changes in state-level tobacco control policies. Moreover, this paper reviews the existing econometric literature on racial and ethnic smoking and discusses the limitations of that research. Finally, this paper outlines an agenda for future research. METHODS: Patterns of racial and ethnic smoking and changes in state-level tobacco control policies in the United States were obtained from a variety of sources, including surveys and government and private documents and databases. After an extensive literature search was completed, the existing research was scrutinized and recommendations for much-needed future research were put forth. FINDINGS: Despite the fact that certain racial and ethnic minorities bear a disproportionate share of the overall health burden of tobacco, less than a handful of econometric studies have examined the effects of state-level public policies on racial and ethnic smoking. The existing literature finds Hispanics and African Americans to be more responsive to changes in cigarette prices than whites. Only one study examined other state-level tobacco policies. The findings from that study implied that adolescent white male smoking was responsive to changes in smoke-free air laws, while adolescent black smoking was responsive to changes in youth access laws. CONCLUSIONS: While much has been learned from prior econometric studies on racial and ethnic smoking in the United States, the existing literature suffers from numerous limitations that should be addressed in future research. Additional research that focuses on races and ethnicities other than white, black and Hispanic is warranted. Furthermore, future studies should use more recent data, hold sentiment toward tobacco constant and control for a comprehensive set of tobacco policies that take into account not only the presence of the laws, but also the level of restrictiveness of each policy.
AIMS: This paper describes patterns of racial and ethnic cigarette use in the United States and discusses changes in state-level tobacco control policies. Moreover, this paper reviews the existing econometric literature on racial and ethnic smoking and discusses the limitations of that research. Finally, this paper outlines an agenda for future research. METHODS: Patterns of racial and ethnic smoking and changes in state-level tobacco control policies in the United States were obtained from a variety of sources, including surveys and government and private documents and databases. After an extensive literature search was completed, the existing research was scrutinized and recommendations for much-needed future research were put forth. FINDINGS: Despite the fact that certain racial and ethnic minorities bear a disproportionate share of the overall health burden of tobacco, less than a handful of econometric studies have examined the effects of state-level public policies on racial and ethnic smoking. The existing literature finds Hispanics and African Americans to be more responsive to changes in cigarette prices than whites. Only one study examined other state-level tobacco policies. The findings from that study implied that adolescent white male smoking was responsive to changes in smoke-free air laws, while adolescent black smoking was responsive to changes in youth access laws. CONCLUSIONS: While much has been learned from prior econometric studies on racial and ethnic smoking in the United States, the existing literature suffers from numerous limitations that should be addressed in future research. Additional research that focuses on races and ethnicities other than white, black and Hispanic is warranted. Furthermore, future studies should use more recent data, hold sentiment toward tobacco constant and control for a comprehensive set of tobacco policies that take into account not only the presence of the laws, but also the level of restrictiveness of each policy.
Authors: Joseph G L Lee; Lisa Henriksen; Shyanika W Rose; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Traci L Toomey; Vincent Chen; Jean L Forster; Pam Van Coevering; Kathleen M Lenk Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792