No edit summary |
|||
| (21 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
='''Studies'''= <!--T:2--> | ='''Studies'''= <!--T:2--> | ||
===2023: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2023/07/21/tc-2022-057743 Effect of e-cigarette taxes on e-cigarette and cigarette retail prices and sales, USA, 2014–2019]=== | |||
*Our study finds that e-cigarette taxes increase e-cigarette retail prices by approximately half of the tax. Further, e-cigarette taxes are associated with reduced sales of e-cigarettes and increased sales of cigarettes in some specifications. | |||
===2023: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.22485 (Updated) The Effect of E-Cigarette Taxes on Pre-pregnancy and Prenatal Smoking]=== | |||
*Using fixed effect regressions, we show that e-cigarette taxes increase pre-pregnancy and prenatal smoking. | |||
===2022: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.16002 Young Adult Responses to Taxes on Cigarettes and Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems]=== | ===2022: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.16002 Young Adult Responses to Taxes on Cigarettes and Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems]=== | ||
*In the United States, higher ENDS tax rates are associated with decreased ENDS use but increased cigarette smoking among 18- to 25-year-olds, with associations reversed for cigarette taxes. | *In the United States, higher ENDS tax rates are associated with decreased ENDS use but increased cigarette smoking among 18- to 25-year-olds, with associations reversed for cigarette taxes. | ||
*Article: [https://news.yale.edu/2022/07/19/higher-taxes-e-cigs-likely-boost-cigarette-smoking-among-young-adults Tax increases on e-cigs likely to boost cigarette smoking among young adults] | *Article: [https://news.yale.edu/2022/07/19/higher-taxes-e-cigs-likely-boost-cigarette-smoking-among-young-adults Tax increases on e-cigs likely to boost cigarette smoking among young adults] | ||
===2022: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629622000911 The effects of e-cigarette taxes on e-cigarette prices and tobacco product sales: Evidence from retail panel data]=== | |||
*For every one Juul-sized e-cigarette eliminated as a result of an e-cigarette tax, 1.9 packs [of cigarettes] are purchased instead | |||
===2022: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1475-6773.14088 The effect of cigarette and e-cigarette taxes on prescriptions for smoking cessation medications]=== | |||
*Our findings suggest that, during a period when e-cigarettes are widely available, cigarette tax increases remain effective in increasing use of these medications, but e-cigarette taxes do not increase use of these medications. | |||
===2021: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w29216 Intended and Unintended Effects of E-cigarette Taxes on Youth Tobacco Use]=== <!--T:3--> | ===2021: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w29216 Intended and Unintended Effects of E-cigarette Taxes on Youth Tobacco Use]=== <!--T:3--> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 33: | ||
*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 | *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. | *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--> | ===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--> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 40: | ||
*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 | *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). | *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--> | ===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--> | ||
| Line 42: | Line 50: | ||
*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. | *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. | *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--> | ===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--> | ||
| Line 52: | Line 58: | ||
*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 | *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). | *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--> | ===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--> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 66: | ||
*'''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.''' | *'''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. | *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--> | ===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--> | ||
| Line 72: | Line 74: | ||
*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. | *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. | ||
===2020: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7880200/ The effects of traditional cigarette and e-cigarette tax rates on adult tobacco product use]=== | |||
*Additionally, we are also able to show that e-cigarette taxes increase traditional cigarette use, echoing results from studies using price variation matched to sales data... | |||
===2019: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3503054 E-Cigarettes and Adult Smoking: Evidence from Minnesota]=== <!--T:15--> | ===2019: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3503054 E-Cigarettes and Adult Smoking: Evidence from Minnesota]=== <!--T:15--> | ||
| Line 90: | Line 93: | ||
*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 | *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). | *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--> | ===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--> | ||
| Line 100: | Line 101: | ||
*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. | *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. | *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--> | ===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--> | ||
| Line 109: | Line 108: | ||
*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. | *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] | *[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--> | ===2004: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448232/ Poor Smokers, Poor Quitters, and Cigarette Tax Regressivity]=== <!--T:23--> | ||
| Line 118: | Line 115: | ||
='''Resources'''= <!--T:25--> | ='''Resources'''= <!--T:25--> | ||
==Policy Analysis== <!--T:26--> | ==Policy Analysis== <!--T:26--> | ||
===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/report/harmreduction101/ Tobacco Harm Reduction 101]=== | |||
*See Section on Taxes | |||
===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/harm-reduction/tobacco-vaping-101-50-state-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2C0JCX2z_m1nQtk06qNn7wdx8SFhlzxgv8IW5zvVHPV9Nv1UdsZ8MXNQQ Tobacco & Vaping 101: United States]=== <!--T:27--> | ===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/harm-reduction/tobacco-vaping-101-50-state-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2C0JCX2z_m1nQtk06qNn7wdx8SFhlzxgv8IW5zvVHPV9Nv1UdsZ8MXNQQ Tobacco & Vaping 101: United States]=== <!--T:27--> | ||
| Line 128: | Line 125: | ||
<!--T:28--> | <!--T:28--> | ||
*50 state and Washington DC analysis of smoking, vaping, taxes, MSA funds, and prevention / cessesation funding. | *50 state and Washington DC analysis of smoking, vaping, taxes, MSA funds, and prevention / cessesation funding. | ||
===2021: [https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_600.pdf The Taxation of Nicotine in Canada: A Harm-Reduction Approach to the Profusion of New Products]=== <!--T:29--> | ===2021: [https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_600.pdf The Taxation of Nicotine in Canada: A Harm-Reduction Approach to the Profusion of New Products]=== <!--T:29--> | ||
| Line 136: | Line 130: | ||
<!--T:30--> | <!--T:30--> | ||
*A critical feature of tobacco use is that morbidity and mortality spring primarily from the combustion process associated with traditional cigarettes. Nicotine, a chemical found in tobacco, is addictive and may not be safe in extreme doses but it, by itself, is not the source of harm from tobacco/smoking. As a result, policymakers must take this into account when considering tax rates for nicotine/tobacco-based products. The harm-reduction approach taken in this Commentary recognizes that cigarettes kill and that if alternative nicotine systems are known with certainty to contain a small fraction of the toxins in cigarettes, this is sufficient to attempt to divert users away from the killer products toward the lower-risk ones, even with uncertainty surrounding the lifecycle health impacts of the latter. | *A critical feature of tobacco use is that morbidity and mortality spring primarily from the combustion process associated with traditional cigarettes. Nicotine, a chemical found in tobacco, is addictive and may not be safe in extreme doses but it, by itself, is not the source of harm from tobacco/smoking. As a result, policymakers must take this into account when considering tax rates for nicotine/tobacco-based products. The harm-reduction approach taken in this Commentary recognizes that cigarettes kill and that if alternative nicotine systems are known with certainty to contain a small fraction of the toxins in cigarettes, this is sufficient to attempt to divert users away from the killer products toward the lower-risk ones, even with uncertainty surrounding the lifecycle health impacts of the latter. | ||
*Several identifiable social groups experience high rates of tobacco use: individuals with poor mental health, First Nations and Indigenous Communities (FNICs), the homeless and individuals who identify as LGBTQ+. For many in these communities, tobacco is both a comfort and a burden: nicotine provides the comfort while the toxins debilitate the body and the mind. The objective of reducing smoking must become more keenly focused upon who is still smoking and why. If nicotine alone provides minimal health damage and at the same time provides satisfaction to users, then the “war on tobacco” needs to separate out combustion-related tobacco toxins from nicotine. These high nicotine-use social groups also have lower average incomes than the population at large and, therefore, should not be denied access to less-expensive nicotine by limiting access to lowerpriced ANDS (Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems). | *Several identifiable social groups experience high rates of tobacco use: individuals with poor mental health, First Nations and Indigenous Communities (FNICs), the homeless and individuals who identify as LGBTQ+. For many in these communities, tobacco is both a comfort and a burden: nicotine provides the comfort while the toxins debilitate the body and the mind. The objective of reducing smoking must become more keenly focused upon who is still smoking and why. If nicotine alone provides minimal health damage and at the same time provides satisfaction to users, then the “war on tobacco” needs to separate out combustion-related tobacco toxins from nicotine. These high nicotine-use social groups also have lower average incomes than the population at large and, therefore, should not be denied access to less-expensive nicotine by limiting access to lowerpriced ANDS (Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems). | ||
==Slide Presentation== <!--T:31--> | ==Slide Presentation== <!--T:31--> | ||
===[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y56XDXLzxggycyaZrlkOAjc6EBzpJu3M/view Economics of E-Cigarettes: Background, Theory, and Evidence]=== <!--T:32--> | ===[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y56XDXLzxggycyaZrlkOAjc6EBzpJu3M/view Economics of E-Cigarettes: Background, Theory, and Evidence]=== <!--T:32--> | ||
| Line 147: | Line 138: | ||
<!--T:33--> | <!--T:33--> | ||
*Nice presentation that gives a lot of historical information on vapor technology, links to several studies, and a broad view of policy implications | *Nice presentation that gives a lot of historical information on vapor technology, links to several studies, and a broad view of policy implications | ||
==Tax Information== <!--T:34--> | ==Tax Information== <!--T:34--> | ||
===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/harm-reduction/low-income-smoking-50-state-analysis/ Low-Income & Smoking: 50 State Analysis ]=== <!--T:35--> | ===[https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/harm-reduction/low-income-smoking-50-state-analysis/ Low-Income & Smoking: 50 State Analysis ]=== <!--T:35--> | ||
| Line 157: | Line 145: | ||
<!--T:36--> | <!--T:36--> | ||
*Covers smoking and vaping. Clickable map for state by state analysis | *Covers smoking and vaping. Clickable map for state by state analysis | ||
===[https://igentax.com/vape-tax-state/?fbclid=IwAR3Okz4Tm2bFup_TTKDVpkPCa25gwk8jn1_C1Txk5ILOlB6DwfcEkJb3muk USA table of vapor taxes by state]=== <!--T:37--> | ===[https://igentax.com/vape-tax-state/?fbclid=IwAR3Okz4Tm2bFup_TTKDVpkPCa25gwk8jn1_C1Txk5ILOlB6DwfcEkJb3muk USA table of vapor taxes by state]=== <!--T:37--> | ||
| Line 164: | Line 150: | ||
<!--T:38--> | <!--T:38--> | ||
*Stats on vape taxes in the USA | *Stats on vape taxes in the USA | ||
===[http://www.natocentral.org/tobacco-tax-maps USA Maps of Vapor and Tobacco Taxes]=== <!--T:39--> | ===[http://www.natocentral.org/tobacco-tax-maps USA Maps of Vapor and Tobacco Taxes]=== <!--T:39--> | ||
| Line 171: | Line 155: | ||
<!--T:40--> | <!--T:40--> | ||
*Page contains several maps of taxes on several kinds of tobacco and vapor products. | *Page contains several maps of taxes on several kinds of tobacco and vapor products. | ||
='''Articles / OP-Eds'''= <!--T:41--> | ='''Articles / OP-Eds / Reports'''= <!--T:41--> | ||
===2022: [https://filtermag.org/vape-taxes-smoking/ Vape Taxes a Great Way to Encourage Smoking, Researchers Show]=== | |||
*The main takeaway here is that our study finds that for every one Juul-sized e-cigarette eliminated as a result of an e-cigarette tax, 1.9 packs [of cigarettes] are purchased instead | |||
===2021: [https://news.gsu.edu/2021/08/30/taxing-tobacco-and-e-cigarettes-at-same-rate-will-harm-young-users-new-study-finds/ Taxing Tobacco and E-Cigarettes at Same Rate Will Harm Young Users, New Study Finds]=== | |||
*A National Institutes of Health-funded study by nine health economists, including Georgia State University’s Michael Pesko, suggests the Tobacco Tax Equity Act of 2021 before Congress may not benefit public health – particularly among youth – because it is likely to induce substitution towards more lethal combustible tobacco products. | |||
===2021: [https://wset.com/news/nation-world/experts-proposed-e-cigarette-tax-could-drive-teens-to-more-harmful-products Experts: Proposed e-cigarette tax could drive teens to more harmful products]=== | |||
*“We estimate that the federal bill as currently written would cause two in three teens that no longer use e-cigarettes due to the e-cigarette tax to smoke cigarettes instead, which would paradoxically increase tobacco-related harm over not having changed the tax rates at all,” Pesko said. | |||
===2021: [https://web.archive.org/web/20210910222605/https://gazette.com/news/taxing-e-cigarettes-could-have-adverse-consequences/article_ffa1324a-2322-5f84-a624-1ea9110f97d8.html Taxing e-cigarettes could have adverse consequences]=== | |||
*The authors reported that a tax on electronic nicotine delivery systems reduces the likelihood that the youth will buy the products in retail stores. However, hiking up the prices of vaping products runs the risk of pushing young people toward cheaper alternatives, such as regular cigarettes. | |||
===2021: [https://filtermag.org/vape-taxes-increase-smoking/?fbclid=IwAR1-XO6IuZI2l4ydWqGZc99smyG8xX4DuP3X29PWBTSoEWBfw_BB0r1zlcc To Increase Smoking Rates Among Young Adults, Keep Hiking Vape Taxes]=== <!--T:42--> | ===2021: [https://filtermag.org/vape-taxes-increase-smoking/?fbclid=IwAR1-XO6IuZI2l4ydWqGZc99smyG8xX4DuP3X29PWBTSoEWBfw_BB0r1zlcc To Increase Smoking Rates Among Young Adults, Keep Hiking Vape Taxes]=== <!--T:42--> | ||
| Line 185: | Line 177: | ||
**California had a 34 percent increase in people aged 18-24 who smoked after the passage of an e-cigarette tax. Deleware's increase was 48.6 percent. Pennsylvania passed a 40% wholesale tax on vapor products, which closed 1/3 of the vape shops in that state and increased smoking in the 18-24 year old age group by 19 percent. Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota and West Virginia also say increases in smoking in young adults after passing taxes on vapor products. | **California had a 34 percent increase in people aged 18-24 who smoked after the passage of an e-cigarette tax. Deleware's increase was 48.6 percent. Pennsylvania passed a 40% wholesale tax on vapor products, which closed 1/3 of the vape shops in that state and increased smoking in the 18-24 year old age group by 19 percent. Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota and West Virginia also say increases in smoking in young adults after passing taxes on vapor products. | ||
*Peer-reviewed studies have found that high taxation rates on e-cigarettes increase smoking and/or prevent adult smokers from transitioning to less harmful alternatives. | *Peer-reviewed studies have found that high taxation rates on e-cigarettes increase smoking and/or prevent adult smokers from transitioning to less harmful alternatives. | ||
===2020: [https://filtermag.org/native-american-reservations-new-york-vape-shops/ Native American Reservations a Haven for New York Vape Shops]=== <!--T:44--> | ===2020: [https://filtermag.org/native-american-reservations-new-york-vape-shops/ Native American Reservations a Haven for New York Vape Shops]=== <!--T:44--> | ||
| Line 192: | Line 182: | ||
<!--T:45--> | <!--T:45--> | ||
*New York State’s 20 percent excise tax on vapor products and nearly 9 percent sales tax also do not apply to the Shinnecock and other tribes. Essentially, Silva said, patrons can spend almost 30 percent less than they normally spend, and nobody has to worry about breaking the law. | *New York State’s 20 percent excise tax on vapor products and nearly 9 percent sales tax also do not apply to the Shinnecock and other tribes. Essentially, Silva said, patrons can spend almost 30 percent less than they normally spend, and nobody has to worry about breaking the law. | ||
===2020: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/02/10/new-study-suggests-raising-taxes-on-e-cigarettes-could-encourage-traditional-smoking/?sh=4a99623757bf New Study Suggests Raising Taxes On E-Cigarettes Could Encourage Traditional Smoking]=== <!--T:46--> | ===2020: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/02/10/new-study-suggests-raising-taxes-on-e-cigarettes-could-encourage-traditional-smoking/?sh=4a99623757bf New Study Suggests Raising Taxes On E-Cigarettes Could Encourage Traditional Smoking]=== <!--T:46--> | ||
| Line 199: | Line 187: | ||
<!--T:47--> | <!--T:47--> | ||
*Using data from 35,000 national retailers from 2011 to 2017, researchers found that for every 10% increase in e-cigarette prices, e-cigarette sales dropped 26%. But the same 10% increase in e-cigarette prices caused traditional cigarette sales to jump by 11%. | *Using data from 35,000 national retailers from 2011 to 2017, researchers found that for every 10% increase in e-cigarette prices, e-cigarette sales dropped 26%. But the same 10% increase in e-cigarette prices caused traditional cigarette sales to jump by 11%. | ||
===2019: [https://taxfoundation.org/vaping-taxes-carefully-designed/ Vaping Taxes Should Be Carefully Designed]=== <!--T:48--> | ===2019: [https://taxfoundation.org/vaping-taxes-carefully-designed/ Vaping Taxes Should Be Carefully Designed]=== <!--T:48--> | ||
| Line 208: | Line 194: | ||
*It is a principle of good taxation policy that taxes remain as neutral as possible. That means taxes should neither encourage nor discourage personal or business decisions. Legislators should pass regulations rather than adopt taxes to achieve regulatory goals. Furthermore, they should make sure that current regulations are enforced. | *It is a principle of good taxation policy that taxes remain as neutral as possible. That means taxes should neither encourage nor discourage personal or business decisions. Legislators should pass regulations rather than adopt taxes to achieve regulatory goals. Furthermore, they should make sure that current regulations are enforced. | ||
===2019: Truth Initiative - [https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-prevention-efforts/importance-tobacco-taxes The importance of tobacco taxes]=== | |||
*"Combustible tobacco products cause the most damage to health and should be taxed at the highest rate. However, not all tobacco products carry the same health consequences. A tax structure that uses a sliding scale based on product health impacts can discourage use of the most harmful products. For those who cannot or will not quit tobacco altogether, a comparatively lower tax rate makes those products that help smokers switch completely to significantly less harmful products more accessible, and increases incentives to quit the more expensive, and most harmful combustible products." | |||
===2019: [https://heartland.org/publications/research--commentary-vaping-taxes-do-not-deter-youth-use-of-e-cigarettes/ Research & Commentary: Vaping Taxes Do Not Deter Youth Use of E-Cigarettes]=== | |||
*By Lindsey Stroud | |||
===2018: [https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2018/07/19/are-sin-taxes-healthy-for-state-budgets Are Sin Taxes Healthy for State Budgets?]=== <!--T:50--> | ===2018: [https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2018/07/19/are-sin-taxes-healthy-for-state-budgets Are Sin Taxes Healthy for State Budgets?]=== <!--T:50--> | ||
| Line 221: | Line 211: | ||
*State regulations have already had significant effects on suppliers. In Pennsylvania, for example, more than 100 shops have closed since a tax—40 percent of wholesale value—went into effect in October 2016. Wide disparities in state tax rates probably incentivize smuggling and tax evasion; high tax rates could fuel a black market. | *State regulations have already had significant effects on suppliers. In Pennsylvania, for example, more than 100 shops have closed since a tax—40 percent of wholesale value—went into effect in October 2016. Wide disparities in state tax rates probably incentivize smuggling and tax evasion; high tax rates could fuel a black market. | ||
===2016: [https://iea.org.uk/publications/understanding-the-basic-economics-of-tobacco-harm-reduction/ Understanding the basic economics of tobacco harm reduction]=== | |||
*Minimising taxes on low risk tobacco products will improve public health | |||
===2016:[https://itep.org/cigarette-taxes-issues-and-options-1/ Cigarette Taxes: Issues and Options]=== <!--T:52--> | ===2016:[https://itep.org/cigarette-taxes-issues-and-options-1/ Cigarette Taxes: Issues and Options]=== <!--T:52--> | ||
| Line 229: | Line 220: | ||
*Cigarette taxes are regressive: that is, low- and middle-income taxpayers pay more of their income in these taxes, on average, than do upper-income families. | *Cigarette taxes are regressive: that is, low- and middle-income taxpayers pay more of their income in these taxes, on average, than do upper-income families. | ||
*If a state is relying on the revenue from the tax to fund programs or supplement a state budget, however, it is important to note that the revenues raised by cigarette taxes are unlikely to be sustainable in the long-run, and that their impact will fall disproportionately on lower-income individuals. | *If a state is relying on the revenue from the tax to fund programs or supplement a state budget, however, it is important to note that the revenues raised by cigarette taxes are unlikely to be sustainable in the long-run, and that their impact will fall disproportionately on lower-income individuals. | ||
='''Videos'''= <!--T:54--> | ='''Videos'''= <!--T:54--> | ||
| Line 242: | Line 231: | ||
='''Blogs'''= <!--T:57--> | ='''Blogs'''= <!--T:57--> | ||
===2019: [https://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2019/05/vaping-lost-tobacco-revenue.html Are vapers like you paying for lost tobacco revenue?]=== <!--T:58--> | ===2019: [https://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2019/05/vaping-lost-tobacco-revenue.html Are vapers like you paying for lost tobacco revenue?]=== <!--T:58--> | ||
| Line 250: | Line 237: | ||
*[https://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/james-dunworth-bio By James Dunworth] | *[https://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/james-dunworth-bio By James Dunworth] | ||
*Could billions of dollars in tobacco taxes be one of the factors behind the attack on a disruptive industry? | *Could billions of dollars in tobacco taxes be one of the factors behind the attack on a disruptive industry? | ||
===[https://www.thr101.org/search-results/q-Taxes/qc-blogs Several Posts ABout Taxes on THR101]=== <!--T:60--> | ===[https://www.thr101.org/search-results/q-Taxes/qc-blogs Several Posts ABout Taxes on THR101]=== <!--T:60--> | ||
| Line 257: | Line 242: | ||
<!--T:61--> | <!--T:61--> | ||
*Several posts on vaping and taxes | *Several posts on vaping and taxes | ||
='''Unintended Consequences of Taxes and Bans - Law Enforcement'''= <!--T:62--> | ='''Unintended Consequences of Taxes and Bans - Law Enforcement'''= <!--T:62--> | ||
===2014: [https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eric-garner-dies-nypd-chokehold Eric Garner dies in NYPD chokehold]=== <!--T:63--> | ===2014: [https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eric-garner-dies-nypd-chokehold Eric Garner dies in NYPD chokehold]=== <!--T:63--> | ||
| Line 268: | Line 249: | ||
<!--T:64--> | <!--T:64--> | ||
*Accused of selling "loosies" | *Accused of selling "loosies" | ||
='''Taxpayer Dollars'''= <!--T:65--> | ='''Taxpayer Dollars'''= <!--T:65--> | ||
===2018: [https://regulatorwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Michelle_Minton_-_Fear_Profiteers-3-1.pdf Fear Profiteers]=== <!--T:66--> | ===2018: [https://regulatorwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Michelle_Minton_-_Fear_Profiteers-3-1.pdf Fear Profiteers]=== <!--T:66--> | ||
| Line 285: | Line 262: | ||
*Since 1996, RWJF has given more than $22 million to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights and its educational arm, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. In addition to RWJF, American Nonsmokers’Rights received nearly $5 million between 1995 and 1999 from the California Department of Health Services raised from California’s Prop 99 cigarette tax increase—to compile what several media outlets, including The Los Angeles Times, described as an “enemies list.” This involved monitoring and distributing information about people who spoke out against tobacco control policies at city council meetings, and even investigating a judge who had ruled unfavorably in a secondhand smoking case." | *Since 1996, RWJF has given more than $22 million to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights and its educational arm, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. In addition to RWJF, American Nonsmokers’Rights received nearly $5 million between 1995 and 1999 from the California Department of Health Services raised from California’s Prop 99 cigarette tax increase—to compile what several media outlets, including The Los Angeles Times, described as an “enemies list.” This involved monitoring and distributing information about people who spoke out against tobacco control policies at city council meetings, and even investigating a judge who had ruled unfavorably in a secondhand smoking case." | ||
*The "growing market for alternative tobacco products created new competitors for traditional tobacco companies and manufacturers of pharmaceutical nicotine. Declining cigarette sales, and declining cigarette tax revenues, also threaten to tighten the spigot of money flowing to anti-tobacco activists. | *The "growing market for alternative tobacco products created new competitors for traditional tobacco companies and manufacturers of pharmaceutical nicotine. Declining cigarette sales, and declining cigarette tax revenues, also threaten to tighten the spigot of money flowing to anti-tobacco activists. | ||
===2018: [https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/home/topics/smoking/the-unintended-consequences-of-cigarette-taxation/ The Unintended Consequences of Cigarette Taxation]=== <!--T:68--> | ===2018: [https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/home/topics/smoking/the-unintended-consequences-of-cigarette-taxation/ The Unintended Consequences of Cigarette Taxation]=== <!--T:68--> | ||
| Line 292: | Line 268: | ||
*Cigarette taxes are regressive. Poor New Yorkers spend close to a quarter of their income (23.6%) on tobacco. | *Cigarette taxes are regressive. Poor New Yorkers spend close to a quarter of their income (23.6%) on tobacco. | ||
*Only about half of the families that qualify are enrolled in SNAP, but when cigarette taxes go up, people sign up in droves, so much so that, after a tax hike, an eligible but unenrolled household is almost 10 times as likely to sign up for food stamps than to have a member quit smoking. (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is a federal benefit program that helps low-income households buy food.) | *Only about half of the families that qualify are enrolled in SNAP, but when cigarette taxes go up, people sign up in droves, so much so that, after a tax hike, an eligible but unenrolled household is almost 10 times as likely to sign up for food stamps than to have a member quit smoking. (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is a federal benefit program that helps low-income households buy food.) | ||
='''Unintended Consequences - From Black Markets to Deals With Big Tobacco'''= <!--T:70--> | ='''Unintended Consequences - From Black Markets to Deals With Big Tobacco'''= <!--T:70--> | ||
===2021: Article: [https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/05/proposition-ee-jared-polis-colorado-negotiations/ Emails show negotiations involving Colorado governor, cigarette giant that led to tobacco tax hike]=== <!--T:71--> | ===2021: Article: [https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/05/proposition-ee-jared-polis-colorado-negotiations/ Emails show negotiations involving Colorado governor, cigarette giant that led to tobacco tax hike]=== <!--T:71--> | ||
| Line 303: | Line 276: | ||
*The emails obtained by The Sun about the 2020 legislation, including one labeled as a “draft term sheet” and marked “highly confidential,” show Altria was negotiating the measure with Polis and health groups. | *The emails obtained by The Sun about the 2020 legislation, including one labeled as a “draft term sheet” and marked “highly confidential,” show Altria was negotiating the measure with Polis and health groups. | ||
*While Proposition EE raises taxes on most tobacco and nicotine products in Colorado, it actually slashes them for so-called modified-risk tobacco products. Altria sees those products, which are part its IQOS system, as its future. Vaping shops objected to the MRTP discount, saying they lack the resources to seek an MRTP designation for their merchandise from federal regulators and that Altria would be given another market advantage. | *While Proposition EE raises taxes on most tobacco and nicotine products in Colorado, it actually slashes them for so-called modified-risk tobacco products. Altria sees those products, which are part its IQOS system, as its future. Vaping shops objected to the MRTP discount, saying they lack the resources to seek an MRTP designation for their merchandise from federal regulators and that Altria would be given another market advantage. | ||
===2021: Article: [https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/black-market-cigarettes-a-growing-boom-trade-in-wa-warns-ex-top-border-cop-20210121-p56vzf.html?fbclid=IwAR2sQ8gZjcuLHXznvCq5_xxXKKly6h74bDrHyOtQ9iYEhCJtj-xly-znrys Black market cigarettes a growing boom trade in Western Australia, warns ex-top border cop]=== <!--T:73--> | ===2021: Article: [https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/black-market-cigarettes-a-growing-boom-trade-in-wa-warns-ex-top-border-cop-20210121-p56vzf.html?fbclid=IwAR2sQ8gZjcuLHXznvCq5_xxXKKly6h74bDrHyOtQ9iYEhCJtj-xly-znrys Black market cigarettes a growing boom trade in Western Australia, warns ex-top border cop]=== <!--T:73--> | ||
| Line 311: | Line 282: | ||
*The founder of Border Force's illegal tobacco squad says one in five cigarettes smoked in Australia is illegal and demand has spawned a smuggling trade worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year, with a recent record-breaking case in Western Australia. | *The founder of Border Force's illegal tobacco squad says one in five cigarettes smoked in Australia is illegal and demand has spawned a smuggling trade worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year, with a recent record-breaking case in Western Australia. | ||
* the black market for illegal tobacco – imported mainly from Asia and the Middle East – has grown, with the ATO estimating about $650 million in potential tobacco excise revenue was lost in 2017-18. | * the black market for illegal tobacco – imported mainly from Asia and the Middle East – has grown, with the ATO estimating about $650 million in potential tobacco excise revenue was lost in 2017-18. | ||
===2021: Article: [https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/man-receives-100k-fine-after-aglc-seized-nearly-6-700-pounds-of-contraband-tobacco-1.5364849 Man receives $100k fine after AGLC seized nearly 6,700 pounds of contraband tobacco]=== <!--T:75--> | ===2021: Article: [https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/man-receives-100k-fine-after-aglc-seized-nearly-6-700-pounds-of-contraband-tobacco-1.5364849 Man receives $100k fine after AGLC seized nearly 6,700 pounds of contraband tobacco]=== <!--T:75--> | ||
| Line 318: | Line 287: | ||
<!--T:76--> | <!--T:76--> | ||
*The potential lost tax revenue of the products was estimated by Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis (AGLC) to be more than $972,000. | *The potential lost tax revenue of the products was estimated by Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis (AGLC) to be more than $972,000. | ||
===2017: Article: [https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/second-illinois-man-charged-with-using-fake-business-to-buy/article_70009b80-513d-52bb-ba1d-5685d2b2070c.html Second Illinois man charged with using fake business to buy and sell $3M in tax-exempt cigarettes]=== <!--T:77--> | ===2017: Article: [https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/second-illinois-man-charged-with-using-fake-business-to-buy/article_70009b80-513d-52bb-ba1d-5685d2b2070c.html Second Illinois man charged with using fake business to buy and sell $3M in tax-exempt cigarettes]=== <!--T:77--> | ||
| Line 325: | Line 292: | ||
<!--T:78--> | <!--T:78--> | ||
*Most of the cigarettes Khatib bought were allegedly sold in Chicago, where the state excise tax is $1.98 per pack compared to 17 cents per pack in Missouri. Khatib and Qaddoumi allegedly kept the inflated profits. | *Most of the cigarettes Khatib bought were allegedly sold in Chicago, where the state excise tax is $1.98 per pack compared to 17 cents per pack in Missouri. Khatib and Qaddoumi allegedly kept the inflated profits. | ||
===2017: Article: [https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/women-allegedly-bought-up-cigarettes-in-low-tax-missouri-to/article_54dd41be-8d5a-599e-990b-1770d43c148a.html?fbclid=IwAR2tsMmIMMwIX4GbWHQFWoJkSPP4gmbtzN5oQ28C5M_lPUV5s8U0f0MGM2o Women allegedly bought up cigarettes in low-tax Missouri to sell in high-tax New York]=== <!--T:79--> | ===2017: Article: [https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/women-allegedly-bought-up-cigarettes-in-low-tax-missouri-to/article_54dd41be-8d5a-599e-990b-1770d43c148a.html?fbclid=IwAR2tsMmIMMwIX4GbWHQFWoJkSPP4gmbtzN5oQ28C5M_lPUV5s8U0f0MGM2o Women allegedly bought up cigarettes in low-tax Missouri to sell in high-tax New York]=== <!--T:79--> | ||
| Line 332: | Line 297: | ||
<!--T:80--> | <!--T:80--> | ||
*The women admitted they had driven around the St. Louis area in a rented car buying them up [160 cartons of cigarettes], with plans to sell them back in New York. In addition to the recovered cigarette cartons, police found about two dozen fake credit cards that the women apparently used to buy them. | *The women admitted they had driven around the St. Louis area in a rented car buying them up [160 cartons of cigarettes], with plans to sell them back in New York. In addition to the recovered cigarette cartons, police found about two dozen fake credit cards that the women apparently used to buy them. | ||
===2015: Report: [https://www.nap.edu/catalog/19016/understanding-the-us-illicit-tobacco-market-characteristics-policy-context-and Understanding the U.S. Illicit Tobacco Market]=== <!--T:81--> | ===2015: Report: [https://www.nap.edu/catalog/19016/understanding-the-us-illicit-tobacco-market-characteristics-policy-context-and Understanding the U.S. Illicit Tobacco Market]=== <!--T:81--> | ||
| Line 342: | Line 305: | ||
*[https://www.nap.edu/login.php?record_id=19016&page=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fdownload%2F19016 PDF version] | *[https://www.nap.edu/login.php?record_id=19016&page=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fdownload%2F19016 PDF version] | ||
*Citation: National Research Council. 2015. Understanding the U.S. Illicit Tobacco Market: Characteristics, Policy Context, and Lessons from International Experiences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19016. | *Citation: National Research Council. 2015. Understanding the U.S. Illicit Tobacco Market: Characteristics, Policy Context, and Lessons from International Experiences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19016. | ||
===2013: Article: [https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/blog/cigarette-smuggling-makes-wa-tax-revenue-go-smoke Cigarette smuggling makes WA tax revenue go up in smoke]=== <!--T:83--> | ===2013: Article: [https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/blog/cigarette-smuggling-makes-wa-tax-revenue-go-smoke Cigarette smuggling makes WA tax revenue go up in smoke]=== <!--T:83--> | ||
| Line 349: | Line 310: | ||
<!--T:84--> | <!--T:84--> | ||
*Washington’s Department of Revenue estimates the state lost about $376 million in tax revenue in 2012 to cigarette tax evasion. An estimated 35 percent of the cigarettes in Washington are contraband. | *Washington’s Department of Revenue estimates the state lost about $376 million in tax revenue in 2012 to cigarette tax evasion. An estimated 35 percent of the cigarettes in Washington are contraband. | ||
=Suggested Information to Add to This Page= <!--T:91--> | =Suggested Information to Add to This Page= <!--T:91--> | ||
===[https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220512/Tobacco-tax-may-be-associated-with-higher-e-cigarette-use-among-young-people.aspx Tobacco tax may be associated with higher e-cigarette use among young people]=== | ===[https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220512/Tobacco-tax-may-be-associated-with-higher-e-cigarette-use-among-young-people.aspx Tobacco tax may be associated with higher e-cigarette use among young people]=== | ||
</translate> | </translate> | ||
edits