Use of cigarette price-minimizing strategies is common among smokers and appears to hinder smokers from attempting to quit and reducing cigarette consumption. Prohibiting the use of coupons and promotions may uphold the effect of cigarette taxes to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

Tobacco companies have recently introduced products that they claim have reduced toxins and carcinogens, and that they say may be less harmful to smokers. These are potential reduced exposure products, or PREPs. This study measured smokers' awareness of PREPs, use of PREPs, interest in trying PREPs, and beliefs about the regulation of PREPs. This study was based on nationally representative data collected in 2002 and 2003 through the American Smoking and Health Survey. The final sample included 1,174 adult smokers. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted to produce estimates and explore potential correlates of the outcomes. A total of 41.9% of adult smokers reported having heard of at least one of the PREPs measured, and 11.0% reported having tried one of these products. Half of adult smokers (49.9%) said they would like to try PREPs. Interest in trying PREPs was associated with having made a quit attempt, being concerned about the effect of smoking on one's health, and having a household income of less than US dollars 20,000. About half of adult smokers (49.1%) incorrectly believed that PREPs are evaluated for safety by the government before being placed on the market, and 84.2% believed that the government should evaluate the safety of PREPs before they are sold to consumers. This study provides new and timely information on the use of, interest in trying, and beliefs about the regulation of PREPs among a nationally representative sample of adult smokers. With half of adult smokers interested in trying PREPs, the need for concrete scientific evidence on the potential impact of these products is critical.

No abstract

Cigarette smokers are being encouraged to use smokeless tobacco (SLT) in locations where smoking is banned. We examined state-wide data from Minnesota to measure changes over time in the use of SLT and concurrent use of cigarettes and SLT. The Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey was conducted four times between 1999 and 2010 and has provided state-wide estimates of cigarette smoking, SLT use and concurrent use of SLT by smokers. The prevalence of SLT was essentially unchanged through 2007, then increased significantly between 2007 and 2010 (3.1% versus 4.3%, P < 0.05). Similarly, the prevalence of cigarette smokers who reported using SLT was stable then increased between 2007 and 2010 (4.4% versus 9.6%, P < 0.05). The finding of higher SLT use by smokers could indicate that smokers in Minnesota are in an experimental phase of testing alternative products as they adjust to recent public policies restricting smoking in public places. The findings are suggestive that some Minnesota smokers are switching to concurrent use of cigarettes and SLT. Future surveillance reports will be necessary to confirm the results.

Cigarette tax increases result in a reduced demand for cigarettes and increased efforts by smokers to reduce their cost of smoking. Less is known about how smokers think about their expenditures for cigarettes and the possible mechanisms that underlie price-minimizing behaviors. In-depth longitudinal interviews were conducted with Minnesota smokers to explore the factors that influence smokers’ decisions one month prior to a $1.75 cigarette tax increase and again one and three months after the increase. A total of 42 were sampled with 35 completed interviews at all three time points, resulting in 106 interviews across all participants at all time points. A qualitative descriptive approach examined smoking and buying habits, as well as reasons behind these decisions. A hierarchy of ways to save money on cigarettes included saving the most money by changing to roll your own pipe tobacco, changing to a cheaper brand, cutting down or quitting, changing to cigarillos, and buying online. Using coupons, shopping around, buying by the carton, changing the style of cigarette, and stocking up prior to the tax increase were described as less effective. Five factors emerged as impacting smokers’ efforts to save money on cigarettes after the tax: brand loyalty, frugality, addiction, stress, and acclimation.