Summer Sherburne Hawkins1, Nicoline Bach2, Christopher F Baum3. 1. Boston College, School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. Electronic address: summer.hawkins@bc.edu. 2. Boston College, Department of Economics, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. 3. Boston College, School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts; Boston College, Department of Economics, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts; Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftforschung (DIW Berlin), Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our aims were to examine the impact of cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation on current adolescent smoking and smoking frequency overall as well as test whether there were differential policy effects by age. METHODS: Using data on 717,543 adolescents from 43 states in the 1999-2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys, we used difference-in-differences regression models to evaluate the impact of tobacco control policies on current adolescent smoking (yes/no) and, separately, smoking frequency (defined as 0, 1-5, 6-29, 30+ days per month). We tested an interaction between age and cigarette taxes and, separately, smoke-free legislation. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2013, adolescent smoking decreased from 35.3% to 13.9% and 41 of 43 states increased their cigarette tax in real terms by an average of 257%. By the end of the study period, 29 of 43 states had 100% smoke-free restaurant legislation. Although we found no overall effect of cigarette taxes on current smoking, there was a significant interaction by age. Among 14- and 15-year olds, every $1.00 cigarette tax increase was associated with a 2.2 and 1.6 percentage point reduction in smoking, respectively. The enactment of 100% smoke-free restaurant legislation was associated with an overall reduction in adolescent smoking by 1.1 percentage points and there were no differences by age. Cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation were also associated with decreased smoking frequency. CONCLUSIONS: The youngest adolescents are the most price sensitive, and cigarette taxes continue to be a successful approach to reduce adolescent smoking. Smoke-free legislation may also be an effective strategy to reduce smoking among all adolescents.
PURPOSE: Our aims were to examine the impact of cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation on current adolescent smoking and smoking frequency overall as well as test whether there were differential policy effects by age. METHODS: Using data on 717,543 adolescents from 43 states in the 1999-2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys, we used difference-in-differences regression models to evaluate the impact of tobacco control policies on current adolescent smoking (yes/no) and, separately, smoking frequency (defined as 0, 1-5, 6-29, 30+ days per month). We tested an interaction between age and cigarette taxes and, separately, smoke-free legislation. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2013, adolescent smoking decreased from 35.3% to 13.9% and 41 of 43 states increased their cigarette tax in real terms by an average of 257%. By the end of the study period, 29 of 43 states had 100% smoke-free restaurant legislation. Although we found no overall effect of cigarette taxes on current smoking, there was a significant interaction by age. Among 14- and 15-year olds, every $1.00 cigarette tax increase was associated with a 2.2 and 1.6 percentage point reduction in smoking, respectively. The enactment of 100% smoke-free restaurant legislation was associated with an overall reduction in adolescent smoking by 1.1 percentage points and there were no differences by age. Cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation were also associated with decreased smoking frequency. CONCLUSIONS: The youngest adolescents are the most price sensitive, and cigarette taxes continue to be a successful approach to reduce adolescent smoking. Smoke-free legislation may also be an effective strategy to reduce smoking among all adolescents.
Authors: Daniel D Reidpath; Tamzyn M Davey; Amudha Kadirvelu; Ireneous N Soyiri; Pascale Allotey Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Matthew C Farrelly; Brett R Loomis; Beth Han; Joe Gfroerer; Nicole Kuiper; G Lance Couzens; Shanta Dube; Ralph S Caraballo Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nancy D Brener; Laura Kann; Shari Shanklin; Steve Kinchen; Danice K Eaton; Joseph Hawkins; Katherine H Flint Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2013-03-01
Authors: Amy Y Hafez; Mariaelena Gonzalez; Margarete C Kulik; Maya Vijayaraghavan; Stanton A Glantz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Alexandra Loukas; Ellen M Paddock; Xiaoyin Li; Melissa B Harrell; Keryn E Pasch; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Andrea R Titus; Yanmei Xie; James F Thrasher; David T Levy; Michael R Elliott; Megan E Patrick; Nancy L Fleischer Journal: Addiction Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Nancy L Fleischer; J Travis Donahoe; M Chandler McLeod; James F Thrasher; David T Levy; Michael R Elliott; Rafael Meza; Megan E Patrick Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 6.953