Abstract:This paper uses unconditional quantile regression to estimate whether smokers' responses to tobacco control policies change across the distribution of smoking levels. I measure smoking behavior with the number of cigarettes smoked per day and also with serum cotinine levels, a continuous biomarker of nicotine exposure, using individual-level repeated cross-section data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. I find that the cigarette taxes lead to reductions in both the number of cigarettes… Show more
“…These findings are consistent with the larger reductions in cigarettes smoked found for those smoking 10-20 cigarettes a day (e.g. Nesson, 2015); these smokers would also experience the biggest declines in disposable income and thus the largest income effects. In contrast, recent quitters appear to increase their exercise in response to cigarette taxes by 0.148.…”
Section: Exercise Behaviorsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Similarly, our simple approach here ignores the findings of Nesson (2015) and Maclean et al (2014) that, using unconditional quantile regressions and richer smoking data, the estimated reduction in cigarettes smoked varies over the distribution and is strongest and statistically significant among those smoking 10-20 cigarettes per day (the middle quantiles of current smokers). Most estimated coefficients are negative but statistically insignificant.…”
Section: Smoking Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The one anomaly is the large, positive and statistically significant coefficient for the very young; we suspect this effect is because of selection, as higher cigarette taxes prevent these individuals from initiating the smoking habit and drive out the less hardened younger smokers. Similarly, our simple approach here ignores the findings of Nesson (2015) and Maclean et al (2014) that, using unconditional quantile regressions and richer smoking data, the estimated reduction in cigarettes smoked varies over the distribution and is strongest and statistically significant among those smoking 10-20 cigarettes per day (the middle quantiles of current smokers). When such distributional differences are ignored, however, Maclean et al (2014) find no statistically significant effect (Table IV, p.…”
“…These findings are consistent with the larger reductions in cigarettes smoked found for those smoking 10-20 cigarettes a day (e.g. Nesson, 2015); these smokers would also experience the biggest declines in disposable income and thus the largest income effects. In contrast, recent quitters appear to increase their exercise in response to cigarette taxes by 0.148.…”
Section: Exercise Behaviorsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Similarly, our simple approach here ignores the findings of Nesson (2015) and Maclean et al (2014) that, using unconditional quantile regressions and richer smoking data, the estimated reduction in cigarettes smoked varies over the distribution and is strongest and statistically significant among those smoking 10-20 cigarettes per day (the middle quantiles of current smokers). Most estimated coefficients are negative but statistically insignificant.…”
Section: Smoking Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The one anomaly is the large, positive and statistically significant coefficient for the very young; we suspect this effect is because of selection, as higher cigarette taxes prevent these individuals from initiating the smoking habit and drive out the less hardened younger smokers. Similarly, our simple approach here ignores the findings of Nesson (2015) and Maclean et al (2014) that, using unconditional quantile regressions and richer smoking data, the estimated reduction in cigarettes smoked varies over the distribution and is strongest and statistically significant among those smoking 10-20 cigarettes per day (the middle quantiles of current smokers). When such distributional differences are ignored, however, Maclean et al (2014) find no statistically significant effect (Table IV, p.…”
“…6 Other measures like banning advertising and plain packaging may restrict commercial liberty, and although this might upset thoroughgoing libertarians, it does not directly threaten the liberty of individuals in any meaningful sense. Increased taxation is known to reduce demand (e.g., Nesson, 2017) (Mill, 1991, p.111) The conclusion here seems clear: the measure is different only in degree, and as prohibition for the person's own good is not justifiable, neither is taxation. But he goes on:…”
Section: Society Can and Does Execute Its Own Mandates: And If Itmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Other measures like banning advertising and plain packaging may restrict commercial liberty, and although this might upset thoroughgoing libertarians, it does not directly threaten the liberty of individuals in any meaningful sense. Increased taxation is known to reduce demand (e.g., Nesson, ) and in some cases, where income is low, this may be taken to amount to direct prohibition. Mill has some interesting things to say about this:A further question is, whether the State, while it permits should nevertheless indirectly discourage conduct which it deems contrary to the best interests of the agent; whether, for example, it should take measures to render the means of drunkenness more costly… On this as most practical questions, many distinctions require to be made.…”
Section: What Would Mill Say About Smoking Policies?mentioning
This is lightly edited and referenced version of a presentation given at the 20thInternational Philosophy of Nursing conference in Quebec on 23rd August 2016.Philosophical texts are not given the same prominence in nurse education as their more valued younger sibling, primary research evidence, but they can influence practice through guidelines, codes and espoused values. John Stuart Mill's harm principle, found in On Liberty, is not a universal law, and only a thoroughgoing libertarian would defend it as such, though it, or its remnants, can be seen can be seen in policy documents. But its influence is weakening. Smoking bans in enclosed spaces were initially justified with other-regarding considerations, but judgements from unsuccessful legal challenges from patients in UK psychiatric hospitals rely on preventing harm to the smoker, even when smoking outside, which does not harm others. In the wake of legislation, no-smoking policies enacted by hospitals are becoming more aggressive, banning smoking both inside and outside, and extending the use of power gained through employment to prevent nurses assisting patients enjoy a lawful habit. Mill's dictum has been subverted, and this speaks to the fundamental purpose of nursing.Should nurses collude and willingly exert their power for their version of the good of the patient? Or should they instead reaffirm values that support and facilitate life choices made by autonomous people? The paper supports the latter option, and this has wider application for nursing which can be illuminated, if not settled, by revisiting Mill and his famous dictum.
K E Y W O R D SJohn Stuart Mill, no smoking policy, On Liberty, Rampton, Smoking
| INTRODUCTIONWhen thinking about how I could make best use of this kind invitation to speak, I recalled a conference (I won't say which) some years ago. Two plenary speakers stick in the memory. The first was a wellknown nurse academic, who gave every impression that he was speaking completely off the cuff. He was to the extent that there were no notes and plenty of animation, but it soon became apparent that this was because it was little more than an introductory lecture, probably delivered in the same way to lecture halls full of bemused first semester undergraduates every September for many years. I went to coffee wondering whether he was worth the airfare.The second was a distinguished philosopher, and her paper was so dense and detailed that it passed straight over my head into the ether.Unlike the first speaker, she was reading her paper aloud. But it was a paper written to be read, not listened to. The complex ideas needed pause, a re-read and thoughtful application, and because as the education literature tells us, we have limited concentration spans, not least in a crowded and warm conference hall, her ideas were quickly lost. In my presentation, I aimed to steer the middle ground between these positions. I don't think that I said much that you haven't already heard but it's good to pause and revisit Mill and ask if we can lear...
Tobacco tax increases, the most cost‐effective measure in reducing consumption, remain underutilized in low and middle‐income countries. This study estimates the health and economic burden of smoking in Argentina and forecasts the benefits of tobacco tax hikes, accounting for the potential effects of illicit trade. Using a probabilistic Markov microsimulation model, this study quantifies smoking‐related deaths, health events, and societal costs. The model also estimates the health and economic benefits of different increases in the price of cigarettes through taxes. Annually, smoking causes 45,000 deaths and 221,000 health events in Argentina, costing USD 2782 million in direct medical expenses, USD 1470 million in labor productivity loss costs, and USD 1069 million in informal care costs—totaling 1.2% of the national gross domestic product. Even in a scenario that considers illicit trade of tobacco products, a 50% cigarette price increase through taxes could yield USD 8292 million in total economic benefits accumulated over a decade. Consequently, raising tobacco taxes could significantly reduce the health and economic burdens of smoking in Argentina while increasing fiscal revenue.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
