Tag Archives: tobacco control act

Studies of tobacco control programs often focus on California and Massachusetts because of their long funding histories. Tobacco control in California began in 1988 when voters approved the California Tobacco Tax and Health Promotion Act of 1988 (Proposition 99), which increased the state surtax on cigarettes by 25 cents per pack and earmarked revenues for tobacco control programs. In 1992, a Massachusetts ballot initiative raised taxes 25 cents per pack, with the resulting revenue to be used for creation of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program. Some empirical studies have indicated that the programs do indeed reduce smoking. However, the studies’ reliability is unclear.
A 2003 Journal ofHealth Economics paper by Matthew Farrelly et al. points out thatmost studies simply performtrend analysis on the introduction of new tobacco control programs and ignore other factors that might influence tobacco consumption. Those studies also focus heavily on California or Massachusetts. Even if their conclusions are valid — that tobacco control programs cause less smoking — it remains unclear whether extrapolation to other states is appropriate. Early studies that control for one or more factors outside of tobacco control programs uniformly show that the programs are highly effective in lowering tobacco use. A 1995 American Economic Review paper by T.-W.Hu et al. controlled for state excise taxes and tobacco firm media expenditures and found that state spending lowered consumption in California. A 1995 Journal of Public Health paper also by Hu et al. estimated that a 25 cent state tax hike reduced taxed sales in California whenmeasured over about two years. Those two studies controlled for effects of time on cigarette consumption, whichmay control for various other factors — such as greater health concerns — that affect smoking over time.
However, the Hu team’s studies focus on California, the longest-lived state program, and examine effects on taxed sales over very few and very early years of a program that began in 1988. The Farrelly paper examined tobacco control activities of all 50 states and concluded that state tobacco control expenditures lowered taxed cigarette sales over 1981–2000, after controlling for excise taxes, smuggling, time, and other state-specific factors. They also estimated that aggregate cigarette sales would have fallen by an additional 9 percent by 2000 if states had spent at minimum funding levels advocated by the cdc. A 2005 American Journal of Public Health paper by John Tauras et al. concluded that spending in the 50 states lowered youth smoking prevalence and the number of cigarettes smoked over 1991–2000, after controlling for other factors that might also influence sales. The studies discussed so far examined years in whichmany states did not actively fund programs.
The cdc only began publishing funding data in 2000 because many states did not actively fund programs until after the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998. It remains unclear whether the experience of tobacco control programs prior to whenmost states actively began funding the programs easily translates into recommendations formany states that only began funding around 2000. It is also unclear if experiences in the few states with relatively long funding histories easily convey to themany states without such histories.

President Obama will sign historic legislation granting authority over tobacco products to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.