(added a topic) |
(Added Taxes to Regulations) |
||
| Line 426: | Line 426: | ||
White participants were more likely to use e-cigarettes to save money compared to Hispanics (p = 0.02). | White participants were more likely to use e-cigarettes to save money compared to Hispanics (p = 0.02). | ||
==Regulations== | ==Regulations and Taxes== | ||
===2020: Are E-Cigarette Regulations Jeopardizing the Public Health?=== | ===2020: Are E-Cigarette Regulations Jeopardizing the Public Health?=== | ||
| Line 441: | Line 441: | ||
Second, people who have successfully switched to vaping may relapse to smoking if they come to believe that there is no health benefit from vaping, and thus increase their risk of avoidable morbidity and premature death. | Second, people who have successfully switched to vaping may relapse to smoking if they come to believe that there is no health benefit from vaping, and thus increase their risk of avoidable morbidity and premature death. | ||
Third, the pursuit of arguments that vaping can’t help people to quit smoking, in the face of clear evidence that it does, risks undermining public trust in science. | Third, the pursuit of arguments that vaping can’t help people to quit smoking, in the face of clear evidence that it does, risks undermining public trust in science. | ||
===2020: The Effects of E-Cigarette Taxes on E-Cigarette Prices and Tobacco Product Sales: Evidence from Retail Panel Data=== | |||
We simulate that for every one standard e-cigarette pod (a device that contains liquid nicotine in e-cigarettes) of 0.7 ml no longer purchased as a result of an e-cigarette tax, the same tax increases traditional cigarettes purchased by 6.2 extra packs. | |||
===2020: Vape shop owners/managers’ opinions about FDA regulation of e-cigarettes=== | ===2020: Vape shop owners/managers’ opinions about FDA regulation of e-cigarettes=== | ||
| Line 447: | Line 450: | ||
2) training their personnel to adhere to regulations and provide good customer service; and | 2) training their personnel to adhere to regulations and provide good customer service; and | ||
3) significant concerns about the impact of FDA regulations. With regard to the latter, participants reported mistrust of the intentions of the FDA regulations, financial implications of the regulations (particularly for small businesses), difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulations, insufficient evidence to support the regulations, negative impact on customer service, negative impact on product offerings and product innovation/advancement, and negative implications of flavor bans and/or restrictions on sale of flavors. | 3) significant concerns about the impact of FDA regulations. With regard to the latter, participants reported mistrust of the intentions of the FDA regulations, financial implications of the regulations (particularly for small businesses), difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulations, insufficient evidence to support the regulations, negative impact on customer service, negative impact on product offerings and product innovation/advancement, and negative implications of flavor bans and/or restrictions on sale of flavors. | ||
===2019: E-Cigarettes and Adult Smoking: Evidence from Minnesota=== | |||
We provide some of the first evidence on how e-cigarette taxes impact adult smokers, exploiting the large tax increase in Minnesota. That state was the first to impose a tax on e-cigarettes by extending the definition of tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. This tax, which is 95% of the wholesale price, provides a plausibly exogenous deterrent to e-cigarette use. | |||
Our results suggest that in the sample period about 32,400 additional adult smokers would have quit smoking in Minnesota in the absence of the tax. If this tax were imposed on a national level about 1.8 million smokers would be deterred from quitting in a ten year period. The taxation of e-cigarettes at the same rate as cigarettes could deter more than 2.75 million smokers nationally from quitting in the same period. | |||
| Line 470: | Line 477: | ||
Beneficence: ENDS could benefit addicted smokers by reducing their health risks if they use them to quit and do not engage in dual use. | Beneficence: ENDS could benefit addicted smokers by reducing their health risks if they use them to quit and do not engage in dual use. | ||
Distributive justice: lack of access to ENDS disadvantages smokers who want to reduce their health risks. Different national policies create inequalities in the availability of products to smokers internationally. | Distributive justice: lack of access to ENDS disadvantages smokers who want to reduce their health risks. Different national policies create inequalities in the availability of products to smokers internationally. | ||
==<<<<<<< MORE TO ADD >>>>>>>== | ==<<<<<<< MORE TO ADD >>>>>>>== | ||
edits