Differential impact of state tobacco control policies among race and ethnic groups

Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL 60607-7121, USA.
Addiction (Impact Factor: 4.6). 11/2007; 102 Suppl 2:95-103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01960.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This paper describes patterns of racial and ethnic cigarette use in the United States and discusses changes in state-level tobacco control policies. Moreover, this paper reviews the existing econometric literature on racial and ethnic smoking and discusses the limitations of that research. Finally, this paper outlines an agenda for future research.
Patterns of racial and ethnic smoking and changes in state-level tobacco control policies in the United States were obtained from a variety of sources, including surveys and government and private documents and databases. After an extensive literature search was completed, the existing research was scrutinized and recommendations for much-needed future research were put forth.
Despite the fact that certain racial and ethnic minorities bear a disproportionate share of the overall health burden of tobacco, less than a handful of econometric studies have examined the effects of state-level public policies on racial and ethnic smoking. The existing literature finds Hispanics and African Americans to be more responsive to changes in cigarette prices than whites. Only one study examined other state-level tobacco policies. The findings from that study implied that adolescent white male smoking was responsive to changes in smoke-free air laws, while adolescent black smoking was responsive to changes in youth access laws.
While much has been learned from prior econometric studies on racial and ethnic smoking in the United States, the existing literature suffers from numerous limitations that should be addressed in future research. Additional research that focuses on races and ethnicities other than white, black and Hispanic is warranted. Furthermore, future studies should use more recent data, hold sentiment toward tobacco constant and control for a comprehensive set of tobacco policies that take into account not only the presence of the laws, but also the level of restrictiveness of each policy.

Download full-text


Available from: John A Tauras, Jul 08, 2015
  • Source
    • "Although federal, state and local policies aimed at regulating and restricting tobacco use and sales are intended to protect all members of these communities equally, there is evidence that these policies may have disparate impacts on disparate populations (Moore, Annechino, & Lee, 2009; Moore, Lee, Antin, & Martin, 2006; Moore, McLellan, Tauras, & Fagan, 2009; Tauras, 2007). Regulatory policies that aim to reduce tobacco use by raising the costs of smoking may disproportionately impact ethnic minority smokers (Tauras, 2007). Policies aimed at restricting sales of tobacco products have also been shown to be unevenly enforced in some locales. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite reports of high rates of smoking among Southeast Asian refugees in the United States, few studies have described the environmental aspects of tobacco use among this population, particularly for the second-generation youths. This absence is notable because the social environment within which second-generation youths are exposed to tobacco products differs radically from the natal environment of their parents. We describe results of a youth-led community participatory research project for Southeast Asians in Northern California. Using multiple data sources, second-generation youths documented the salience of tobacco products in their social environment, notably products such as blunts and mentholated cigarettes.
    Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse 01/2013; 12(1):30-50. DOI:10.1080/15332640.2013.759499
  • Source
    • "Since the mid-1980s, tobacco control policies, particularly clean indoor air laws and tax increases (to increase cigarette price) have been implemented (Institute of Medicine, 2007). There is little information on the effects of these policies on health disparities (Tauras, 2007). Although smoking rates have decreased overall, as of 2004 race/ ethnic disparities in smoking participation have deepened since the late 1990s according to National Health Interview Survey data: whites and American Indians/Alaska Natives who have the highest prevalence of smoking participation have seen smaller relative decreases in smoking rates than blacks, Asian Americans and Latinos (Fagan et al., 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study models independent associations of state or local strong clean indoor air laws and cigarette prices with current smoker status and consumption in a multilevel framework, including interactions with educational attainment, household income and race/ethnicity and the relationships of these policies to vulnerabilities in smoking behavior. Cross sectional survey data are employed from the February 2002 panel of the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey (54,024 individuals representing the US population aged 15-80). Non-linear relationships between both outcome variables and the predictors were modeled. Independent associations of strong clean indoor air laws were found for current smoker status (OR 0.66), and consumption among current smokers (-2.36 cigarettes/day). Cigarette price was found to have independent associations with both outcomes, an effect that saturated at higher prices. The odds ratio for smoking for the highest versus lowest price over the range where there was a price effect was 0.83. Average consumption declined (-1.16 cigarettes/day) over the range of effect of price on consumption. Neither policy varied in its effect by educational attainment, or household income. The association of cigarette price with reduced smoking participation and consumption was not found to vary with race/ethnicity. Population vulnerability in consumption appears to be structured by non-white race categories, but not at the state and county levels at which the policies we studied were enacted. Clean indoor air laws and price increases appear to benefit all socio-economic and race/ethnic groups in our study equally in terms of reducing smoking participation and consumption.
    Social Science & Medicine 05/2009; 68(8):1439-47. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.003 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We assessed the price variability of cigarettes by brand, neighborhood characteristics (racial/ethnic and youth composition, number of schools, and number of stores), and store type. Trained research staff purchased three different brands of cigarettes (premium, menthol, and discount-all produced by the same company) at 214 stores in one metropolitan area. We assessed associations between price and neighborhood/store characteristics through multivariate regression, using four price variables as dependent variables-the price of each brand of cigarettes and the mean price across the three brands. We found that the price of cigarettes varied by neighborhood and store characteristics, although this variability differed by brand. For the same brand, the maximum price was 1.7 to 1.8 times higher than the lowest price. We found a positive association between the percentage of a neighborhood that was nonwhite and the price of discount and premium cigarettes as well as the overall mean price of cigarettes, but not with the price of the menthol brand. We found a negative association between the percentage of youth in a neighborhood and the price of premium cigarettes as well as the mean price, but not with the price of the other two brands. In addition, we found a greater likelihood of higher discount brand prices at independent vs. chain-operated stores. Our findings showed that cigarette prices do vary by brand, the youth and racial/ethnic composition in a neighborhood, and store type, suggesting that the tobacco industry might vary its marketing strategies based on brand as well as neighborhood and store characteristics.
    Public Health Reports 124(4):535-40. · 1.64 Impact Factor