ENDS Taxes: Difference between revisions

*Citation: Intended and Unintended Effects of E-cigarette Taxes on Youth Tobacco Use, Rahi Abouk, Charles J. Courtemanche, Dhaval M. Dave, Bo Feng, Abigail S. Friedman, Johanna Catherine Maclean, Michael F. Pesko, Joseph J. Sabia, and Samuel Safford, NBER Working Paper No. 29216, September 2021, JEL No. H2,I1,I18

*Acknowledgement: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01DA045016 (PI: Michael Pesko), R01DA039968 (PI: Dhaval Dave), and an Evidence for Action grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant #74869; PI: Friedman). Dr. Sabia acknowledges support from San Diego State University’s Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies (CHEPS), Dr. Courtemanche acknowledges support from the University of Kentucky’s Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise, and Dr. Abouk acknowledges support from William Paterson University’s Cannabis Research Institute. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

===2021: [https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7835/htm Estimating the Impact of Tobacco Parity and Harm Reduction Tax Proposals Using the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace]=== <!--T:5-->

*Citation: Freitas-Lemos, R.; Keith, D.R.; Tegge, A.N.; Stein, J.S.; Cummings, K.M.; Bickel, W.K. Estimating the Impact of Tobacco Parity and Harm Reduction Tax Proposals Using the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7835. doi:10.3390/ijerph18157835

*Acknowledgement: This study was supported by the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion and the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute grant (5P01CA200512).

===2021 (Revision): [https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26724/w26724.pdf The Effects of E-Cigarette Taxes on E-Cigarette Prices and Tobacco Product Sales: Evidence from Retail Panel Data]=== <!--T:7-->

*In late February 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a national e-cigarette  tax proportional to the federal cigarette tax (House Bill 2339 2020). The bill specifies a tax rate of $50.33 per 1,810 milligrams of nicotine (or $0.028 per milligram). JUUL pods at the time of writing contain 59 milligrams/ml (at 5% nicotine volume). Assuming this conversion, we simulate that, if this bill were to become law, the tax could raise e-cigarette prices by $2.36 per ml ($0.0278 x 59 x 1.44 using Table 3), would reduce NRSD e-cigarette purchases by 1,784 ml per 100,000 adults , and would increase NRSD cigarette pack purchases by 26,736 packs per 100,000 adults. Our rate of substitution would be halved when compensating for  the NRSD capturing roughly twice the share of cigarette sales than e-cigarette sales, which brings us to a substitution rate of one pod = 7.5 packs.

*A limitation of our study is the reliance on e-cigarettes sold through retail stores, so we cannot capture e-cigarettes sold through specialty vape shops and online. However, e-cigarette taxes are collected for both online and vape shop purchases in the same way they are collected in retail stores, so we are unaware of any financial incentive to change shopping venue in response to an e-cigarette tax.

===2020: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w26724 The Effects of E-Cigarette Taxes on E-Cigarette Prices and Tobacco Product Sales: Evidence from Retail Panel Data]=== <!--T:9-->

*Citation: Cotti, C., Courtemanche, C., Maclean, J. C., Nesson, E., Pesko, M., & Tefft, N. (2020). The Effects of E-Cigarette Taxes on E-Cigarette Prices and Tobacco Product Sales: Evidence from Retail Panel Data. doi:10.3386/w26724  

*Acknowledgement: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DA045016 (PI: Michael Pesko).

===2020: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33002156/ The ethics of tobacco harm reduction: An analysis of e-cigarette availability from the perspectives of utilitarianism, bioethics, and public health ethics]=== <!--T:11-->

*'''E-cigarette availability (ECA) can also advance justice by providing a harm reduction alternative for disadvantaged groups that disproportionately bear the devastating consequences of smoking. Policies of differential taxation of cigarettes and e-cigarettes can facilitate adoption of less harmful alternatives by those economically disadvantaged.'''

*We conclude that public health and biomedical ethics frameworks are mutually reinforcing and supportive of ECA as a tobacco harm reduction strategy.  

===2020: [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/DAT-02-2020-0007/full/pdf Tobacco harm reduction in the 21st century]=== <!--T:13-->

*Increasing taxes on reduced-risk products could function to deter smokers from switching to them.

*To reduce smoking and to save millions of lives, tobacco harm reduction in the form of cigarette substitution with low-risk products appears to be a promising path. These products, although not completely risk-free, offer an alternative to quit or die. In consideration of the available evidence, advice to tobacco smokers should include trying substitute products. The obvious fact so often overlooked is that smoking is rewarding and people like to do it. Giving smokers an alternative with efficient nicotine delivery means that they might prefer one of these products over cigarettes.

===2019: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3503054 E-Cigarettes and Adult Smoking: Evidence from Minnesota]=== <!--T:15-->

*Citation: The Effect of E-Cigarette Taxes on Pre-Pregnancy and Prenatal Smoking, and Birth Outcomes - Rahi Abouk, Scott Adams, Bo Feng, Johanna Catherine Maclean, and Michael F. Pesko, NBER Working Paper No. 26126, July 2019, JEL No. I12

*Acknowledgements: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01DA045016 (PI: Michael Pesko).

===2019: [https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26017/w26017.pdf The Effects Of Traditional Cigarette And E-Cigarette Taxes On Adult Tobacco Product Use]=== <!--T:19-->

*This finding suggests that the combination of a traditional cigarette tax hike and e-cigarette tax prevents smokers for either quitting or switching to a less harmful product, both actions would improve smoker health by minimizing exposure to carcinogens and other toxins contained in traditional cigarettes.

*Our research contributes further evidence from differences-in-differences methods that regulating e-cigarettes have the unintended consequence of raising traditional cigarette use; while neither product is harmless, the clinical literature strongly suggests that e-cigarettes are the less harmful product. These results suggest caution in regulating e-cigarettes because they may increase smoking of traditional cigarettes.  

===2019: [http://web.archive.org/web/20200804120404/https://vaportechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Vapor-Industry-Economic-Impact-Study-by-Dunham-Associates-2019-Updated.pdf The Vapor industry  Economic Impact Study]=== <!--T:21-->

*Members of the industry and their employees paid $3.31 billion in federal, state and local taxes. This does not include state and local sales taxes or excise taxes that may apply for specific retail purchases which are estimated to total $1.67 billion.

*[https://vaportechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Vapor-Industry-Economic-Impact-Study-by-Dunham-Associates-2019-Updated.pdf Original link to the study]

===2004: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448232/ Poor Smokers, Poor Quitters, and Cigarette Tax Regressivity]=== <!--T:23-->