The effect of e-cigarette indoor vaping restrictions on adult prenatal smoking and birth outcomes

Cooper, Michael T.; Pesko, Michael F.

doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.10.002

Cited by 26 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, the net effect of ENDS MLSAs on birth outcomes is ambiguous and requires empirical investigation. ENDS indoor vaping restrictions were found to have no effect on birth outcomes for adult pregnant women, potentially because these effects cancelled each other out (Cooper & Pesko, 2017…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

E-cigarette minimum legal sale age laws and traditional cigarette use among rural pregnant teenagers

Currie

2019

Journal of Health Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…information from the American Non-Smokers Rights Foundation, which we used to calculate the percent of the population covered by bans on vaping in private workplaces, bars, and restaurants (Cooper & Pesko, 2017).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

E-cigarette minimum legal sale age laws and traditional cigarette use among rural pregnant teenagers

Currie

2019

Journal of Health Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, theory predicts that smoking bans would have inhibitory effects on tobacco consumption. In addition, smoking ban requires smokers to make additional investments of time to smoke at nonregulated places (Chaloupka & Warner, 2000;Cooper & Pesko, 2017). Smoking restrictions also can change individual's smoking behavior by increasing vdisutility from consuming tobacco products because of changes in social norms regarding the acceptability of smoking (Jones et al, 2015).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adda and Cornaglia (2010) showed that U.S. state-level smoking ban on workplaces, restaurants, and bars did not affect the proportion of people who smoked or attempt to quit but led smokers to spend more time at home smoking. Cooper and Pesko (2017) also found that U.S. county-level electronic cigarette indoor vaping restrictions led to an increase in consumption of traditional tobacco products among pregnant women. Cooper and Pesko (2017) also found that U.S. county-level electronic cigarette indoor vaping restrictions led to an increase in consumption of traditional tobacco products among pregnant women.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…They found, consistent with this hypothesis, that smoking bans targeting restaurants and bars led to an increase in cotinine concentration among children exposed to smoke at home. Cooper and Pesko (2017) also found that U.S. county-level electronic cigarette indoor vaping restrictions led to an increase in consumption of traditional tobacco products among pregnant women. 5 Given the mixed evidence of the behavioral impacts of indoor smoking ban and the very limited evidence of the impacts of outdoor smoking bans, it is useful to examine how individuals respond to smoking bans in outdoor places.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of outdoor smoking ban: Evidence from Korea

2019

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address exposure to secondhand smoke, which is highly prevalent in Korea, local governments have implemented smoking bans at open public places (parks, bus stops, and school zones) since 2011. Exploiting temporal and spatial variation in the implementation dates of these bans, this study estimates their causal effects on individual smoking behavior. The individual-level longitudinal data from the 2009-2017 Korean Labor and Income Panel Study are linked to the smoking ban legislation information from the National Law Information Center. I find robust evidence that outdoor smoking bans increased the probability of making a quit attempt by 16%. This effect appears immediately after a ban goes into effect and lasts for three or more years. People who spend more time outdoors are more likely to change smoking behavior. I also find heterogeneity in effects across the amount of monetary penalty. Whereas the policy change did not affect the prevalence of smoking overall, higher penalties had stronger impacts on reducing the intensity of smoking and increasing the propensity to try to quit. K E Y W O R D Soutdoor smoking ban, secondhand smoke, smoking behavior J E L C L A S S I F I C A T I O NI10; I12; I18

show abstract

Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic cigarettes are a less harmful alternative to combustible cigarettes. We analyze data on e-cigarette choices in an online experimental market. Our data and mixed logit model capture two sources of consumer optimization errors: overestimates of the relative risks of e-cigarettes and present bias. Our novel data and policy analysis make three contributions. First, our predictions about e-cigarette use under counterfactual policy scenarios provide new information about current regulatory tradeoffs. Second, we provide empirical evidence about the role consumer optimization errors play in tobacco product choices. Third, we contribute to behavioral welfare analysis of policies that address individual optimization errors. Compared with standard cost-benefit analysis, our behavioral welfare economics analysis leads to much larger estimates of the costs of policies that discourage e-cigarette use or the benefits of policies that encourage e-cigarette use. K E Y W O R D S behavioral welfare analysis, consumer optimization, electronic cigarettes, electronic nicotine delivery systems, tobacco control 1 | INTRODUCTION Electronic cigarettes and other vaping devices provide users with a vapor that contains nicotine without the combustion-generated toxicants in tobacco smoke. Vaping e-cigarettes is not harmless but poses much lower risks than smoking combustible tobacco. 1 The vaping market has rapidly evolved. The first modern vaping products were introduced in U.S. markets around 2007. Annual sales grew rapidly from $500 million in 2012 to $6.6 billion in 2018 (Cowen and Company Equity Research, 2019). In 2018 data for adults, 9.7% of current smokers, 25.2% of recent (past-year) former smokers, and 4.2% of nonrecent former smokers regularly vape, compared with 1.1% of never smokers. 2 The adult current smoking rate was 19.8% in 2007 when e-cigarettes were introduced into the U.S. market and has declined to 13.7% in 2018 (American Lung Association, 2020; Creamer et al., 2019). Public policy towards vaping is also evolving. Vaping products were regulated as ordinary consumer products until 2016. In May 2016, the FDA issued a rule phasing in regulation of vaping products as tobacco products (FDA, 2016). In early 2020, the FDA announced new enforcement priorities that amount to at least a temporary ban of cartridge-based flavored e-cigarettes (other than menthol) (FDA, 2020a). In addition to the FDA, states, counties, and municipalities 1 Section 2 below provides more discussion of the evidence on the relative risks of vaping and smoking. Unless otherwise stated, we refer to the action of using e-cigarette products as vaping and the action of using any combustible tobacco product as smoking.

show abstract

The effect of e-cigarette indoor vaping restrictions on adult prenatal smoking and birth outcomes

Cited by 26 publications

References 20 publications

E-cigarette minimum legal sale age laws and traditional cigarette use among rural pregnant teenagers

E-cigarette minimum legal sale age laws and traditional cigarette use among rural pregnant teenagers

The effect of outdoor smoking ban: Evidence from Korea

Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About