The Economic Impact of State Cigarette Taxes and Smoke-free Air Policies on Convenience Stores

Research Papers

The Economic Impact of State Cigarette Taxes and Smoke-free Air Policies on
Convenience Stores

Huang J, Chaloupka FJ

This study investigates the economic impact of state cigarette taxes and smoke-free air policies
on convenience stores. Specifically, we examine whether increasing cigarette taxes and/or
enacting stronger smoke-free air policies will reduce number of convenience stores per capita in
a state. Our analyses show that the number of convenience stores is positively correlated with
state cigarette taxes. One explanation for this comes from studies that find cigarette taxes
are over-shifted, leading to larger increases in consumer prices than the tax increase, which could
potentially increase profits at the retail level. In addition, we found smoke-free air policies do not
have negative impacts on convenience stores. Our results are robust across different model specifications and exclusion/inclusion of other tobacco control policies. Additionally, our results
are robust with regard to a broad definition of convenience stores which includes gas stations.

(PDF – 1.45 MB)

Controlling Methamphetaimine Precursors: From Policy to Practice

Program Office
Drugs Research Team
Andrews University,
Institute for Prevention of Addictions

8408 Westwood
Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104-0211
Telephone: 269.471.3558
Facsimile: 269.471.6611

Duane McBride, PhD, Principal Investigator, Andrews University
Jamie Chriqui, PhD, Co-Principal Investigator, The MayaTech Corporation
Jean O’Conner, JD, Co-Investigator, The MayaTech Corporation
Curt VanderWaal, PhD, Co-Investigator, Andrews University
Yvonne Terry-McElrath, Co-Investigator, University of Michigan

Controlling Methamphetamine Precursors: From Policy to Practice is funded
by the National
Institute of Justice
through June 2007.

Data suggest that there has been an increase in the number and geographical
distribution of clandestine labs which is related to significant health
risks for communities, families, and children. This has resulted in a
large number of states attempting to control/restrict access to precursor
chemicals used to make methamphetamine in these labs.

Project Objectives
1) To identify, analyze and report on methamphetamine precursor
laws in each of the 50 states plus D.C. as of October 1, 2005. This will
provide a comprehensive comparative map of what each state has done to
date to address this crucial issue.

2) To assess the continuum of state precursor
restrictions (i.e., from strong to weak restrictions) across the states
based on the detailed analysis of the state laws.

3) To examine the perceived relationship
between the laws in
selected states (sampling along the restrictiveness continuum) from the
perspective of law enforcement personnel and others professionals (such
as pharmacists) at the state and community level. Perceived relationships
will include perceptions of fewer precursor chemicals available, fewer
clandestine labs, fewer precursor chemicals at those labs, fewer drug
endangered children encountered in the labs, and perceived changes, if
any, in precursor and methamphetamine sources (from other states or countries).

3) To explore the association between the
restrictiveness of the precursor laws and reductions in methamphetamine-related
lab seizures, smaller amounts of precursors at those labs, fewer drug
endangered children, etc.

This study will be one of the first to provide a national comparison of
recent state laws developed to control methamphetamine precursors; assess
the relative continuum of precursor controls at the state level; examine
the perceptions of relevant professionals in key states as to the perceived
effectiveness of precursor laws; and to explore the relationship between
the restrictiveness of state laws and changes in the extent of clandestine
labs, precursor chemicals found at those labs, and drug endangered children.

The Impact of the 2009 Federal Tobacco Excise Tax Increase on Youth Tobacco Use

Research Papers

The Impact of the 2009 Federal Tobacco Excise
Tax Increase on Youth Tobacco Use

Huang J, Chaloupka FJ

This study examined the impact of the 2009 federal tobacco excise tax increase on the use of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products among youth using the Monitoring the Future survey,
a nationally representative survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students. The results of this analysis
showed that this tax increase had a substantial short-term impact. The percentage of students who reported smoking in the past 30 days dropped between 9.7% and 13.3% immediately
following the tax increase, depending on model specifications, and the percentage of students
who reported using smokeless tobacco products dropped between 16% and 24%. It is estimated
that there would have been approximately 220,000 – 287,000 more current smokers and 135,000– 203,000 more smokeless tobacco users among middle school and high school students (age 14 – 18) in the United States in May 2009 had the federal tax not increased in April 2009. The longterm
projected number of youth prevented from smoking or using smokeless tobacco that
resulted from the 2009 federal tax increase could be much larger given the resulting higher tobacco prices would deter more and more children from initiating smoking and smokeless
tobacco use over time.

(PDF – 1.34 MB)

Youth Access Tobacco Possession, Purchase, and Use Laws: Measures of State and Local Enforcement

Research Papers

Youth Access Tobacco Possession, Purchase, and Use Laws: Measures of State and Local Enforcement

Tworek C, Giovino G, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Chaloupka FJ

Cigarettes continue to be the tobacco of choice among youth, and many tobacco control policies have been aimed at preventing and reducing youth tobacco use. Youth access laws are designed to prohibit minors from accessing tobacco products, and also to simultaneously reduce both the supply of tobacco and the availability of tobacco products to minors. Youth access possession, use, and purchase (PUP) laws target minors for illegally possessing, using, and/or purchasing tobacco products. PUP laws have sharply increased over the past few decades, and have been controversial as a means to reduce youth tobacco use. This research study collected data on the enforcement of youth access PUP laws at the state level, and developed index measures of enforcement for PUP state-level laws.  This study has also utilized local-level possession enforcement data to construct a measure of local possession enforcement. State measures of PUP enforcement and the local measure of possession enforcement will provide useful data to better understand and study the effectiveness of PUP laws, and their relationship to youth smoking behavior and attitudes. Findings showed that PUP state possession laws had the highest enforcement, while state purchase laws had the lowest mean enforcement scores. Possession ordinances were the most common local-level PUP laws, while purchase ordinances were the least common. A majority of PUP enforcement was found to occur in local areas. State and local possession scores were not highly or significantly correlated; however, local possession laws did have higher enforcement scores than state possession laws, relative to their scales of enforcement. Findings support previous research that most PUP enforcement occurs for local-level possession laws, with great variation among communities. PUP enforcement measures can be incorporated into larger studies related to youth smoking behavior and attitudes.  These studies can assess the effectiveness of PUP laws, incorporating measures of enforcement, and contribute to the knowledgebase of these frequently enacted and seldom evaluated tobacco control policies.

(PDF – 1.92 MB)

Tracking Tobacco Legislation: SmokeLess States Legislative Coding and Evaluation, Overview, Methods, and Process

Research Papers

Tracking Tobacco Legislation: SmokeLess
States Legislative Coding and Evaluation, Overview, Methods, and Process

Tworek C,
Sandoval A, Chaloupka FJ

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) funded SmokeLess States National
Tobacco Control Policy Initiative, begun in 1993, provided funding for state-level
coalitions to engage in media and policy advocacy to strengthen tobacco control
legislation and regulation, with the ultimate goal of reducing the use of tobacco across
states. Tracking the Media and Policy Impacts of State-Level Tobacco Control:
SmokeLess States Evaluation Project (SLS), was funded in 2001 by RWJF to assess the
impact of the SLS coalitions on media coverage of tobacco issues, tobacco control policy
development and adoption, and overall strength of state tobacco control efforts.

The evaluation focused on several upstream outcomes and their interrelationships: news
coverage of tobacco-related issues and the effect of media on policy; legislative activity
on tobacco-related issues and the effect of policy advocacy efforts on legislative activity;
and the strength of statewide tobacco control infrastructure. This paper provides an
overview of the methods and process used in the legislative components of the SLS

(PDF – 1.12 MB)

Changes at the Point-of-Sale for Tobacco Following the 1999 Tobacco Billboard Ban

ImpacTeen Research Papers

Changes at the Point-of-Sale for Tobacco Following the 1999 Tobacco Billboard Ban
Wakefield MA, Terry YM, Chaloupka FJ, Barker DC, Slater SJ, Clark PI, and Giovino GA.

Objective – This study aimed to assess the effect of the Master Settlement Agreement’s (MSA) 24 April 1999 ban on billboard tobacco advertising on the tobacco industry’s point-of-purchase marketing strategies. Methods – Observations were conducted from 16 February through 23 June 1999 in 3,462 tobacco-selling retail stores in a total of 191 communities across the nation. Communities were determined by the location of schools in a nationally representative sample of students in grades 8, 10, and 12 in the United States. At each store, information was collected on the extent of interior and exterior tobacco advertising, extent of tobacco functional objects, presence of tobacco promotions, and placement of tobacco and low-height advertisements. Logistic regression and cumulative logit analyses were used to assess changes in pre- and post-ban retail environments, after adjusting for store type, store size, presence of state tobacco control program and urbanicity. Results – After adjustment for covariates, there were significant post-ban increases in the presence of tobacco sales promotions, the presence and extent of functional objects, the presence of exterior and interior store advertising, and the extensiveness of exterior storeadvertising. Conclusions – The observed increase in the point-of-purchase marketing in the period following the billboard advertising ban suggests that the tobacco industry may be shifting at least some of the expenditures once spent on billboard advertising to the advertising and promotion at the point-of-purchase. The the extent that this is so, the intended effects of the MSAÊbillboard ban may not befully realized.

Research Paper (PDF – 161KB)

Journal Publications

Journal Publications

Szczypka G, Wakefield MA, Emery S, Terry-McElrath Y, Flay BR, Chaloupka FJ. Working to make an image: An analysis of three Philip Morris corporate image media campaigns. Tobacco Control 2007, 16: 344-50.

Terry-McElrath Y, Wakefield M, Emery S, Saffer H, Szczypka G, O’Malley P, Johnston L, Chaloupka F, Flay B. State anti-tobacco advertising and smoking outcomes by gender and race/ethnicity. Ethnicity and Health 2007, 12(4): 339-62.

Wakefield M, Terry-McElrath Y, Emery S, Saffer H, Chaloupka F, Szczypka G, Flay B, O’Malley P, Johnston L. Effect of televised, tobacco company-funded smoking prevention advertising on youth smoking-related beliefs, intentions and behavior. American Journal of Public Health 2006: 96(12): 2154-2160.

Hyland A, Wakefield M, Higbee C, Szczypka G, Cummings KM. Anti-tobacco television advertising and indicators of smoking cessation in adults: A cohort study. Health Education Research 2006, 21(30): 348-354.

Clegg Smith K, Wakefield M, Edsall E. The good news about smoking: How do US newspaper cover tobacco issues? Journal of Public Health Policy 2006, 27: 166-181.

Clegg Smith K, Wakefield M. Newspaper coverage of youth and tobacco: Implications for public health. Health Communications 2006, 19(1):19-28.

Biener L, Reimer RL, Wakefield M, Szczypka G, Rigotti NA, Connolly G. Impact of smoking cessation aids and mass media among recent quitters. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006, 30(3): 217-224.

Wakefield M, Szczypka G, Terry-McElrath Y, Emery S, Flay B, Chaloupka F, Saffer H. Mixed messages on tobacco: Comparative exposure to public health and commercially sponsored tobacco-related campaigns in the United States, 1992-2003. Addiction 2005; 100: 1875-1883.

Hyland A, Wakefield M, Higbee C, Szczypka G, Cummings KM. State-sponsored anti-tobacco television advertising and indicators of smoking cessation in adults: A cohort study. Health Education Research 2005; 21: 296-302.

Wakefield M, Balch GI, Ruel EE, Terry-McElrath Y, Flay B, Szczypka G, Emery S, Clegg-Smith K. Youth appraisal of anti-smoking advertisements from tobacco control agencies, tobacco companies and pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2005, 35 (9): 1894-1911.

Szczypka G, Wakefield M, Emery S, Flay B, Chaloupka F, Slater S, Terry-McElrath Y, Saffer H, Nelson D. Estimated exposure of adolescents to State-funded anti-tobacco television advertisements – 37 States and the District of Columbia, 1999-2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2005, 54: 1077-1080.

Wakefield M, Clegg Smith K, Chapman. Framing of Australian coverage of a secondhand smoke injury claim: Lessons for media advocacy. Critical Public Health 2005, 15(1): 53-63.

Clegg Smith K, McLeod K, Wakefield M. Australian letters to the editor on tobacco: Triggers, Rhetoric, and Claims of Legitimate Voice. Qualitative Health Research 2005, 15: 1180-1198.

Clegg Smith K, Wakefield M. A textual analysis of tobacco editorials: How are key media gatekeepers framing the issues? American Journal of Health Promotion 2005, 19: 361-368.

Johnston L, O’Malley P, Terry-McElrath Y, Wakefield M. Trends in recall and appraisal of anti-smoking advertising among American youth: National survey results, 1997-2001. Prevention Science 2005, 6: 1-19.

Clegg Smith K, Terry-McElrath Y, Wakefield M, Durrant R. Media advocacy and newspaper coverage of tobacco issues: A comparative analysis of 1 year’s print news in the United States and Australia. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2005, 7(2): 289-299.

Emery S, Wakefield M, Terry-McElrath Y, Saffer H, Szczypka G, O’Malley P, Johnston LD, Chaloupka FJ, Flay B. Televised state-sponsored anti-tobacco advertising and youth smoking beliefs and behavior in the United States, 1999-2000. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2005, 159: 639-645.

Terry-McElrath Y, Wakefield M, Ruel E, Balch GI, Emery S, Szczypka G, Clegg-Smith K, Flay B. The effect of anti-smoking advertisement executional characteristics on youth comprehension, appraisal, recall and engagement. Journal of Health Communication 2005, 10: 127-143.

Wakefield M, McLeod K, Clegg Smith K. Individual versus corporate responsibility for smoking-related illness: Australian press coverage of the Rolah McCabe trial. Health Promotion International 2003; 18: 297-305.

Wakefield M, Flay B, Nichter M, Giovino G. Role of media in influencing trajectories of youth smoking. Addiction 2003; 98 (suppl 1): 79-103.

Wakefield M, Flay B, Nichter M, Giovino G. Effects of anti-smoking advertising on youth smoking: A review. Journal of Health Communication 2003; 8: 229-247.

Clegg Smith K, Wakefield MA, Nichter M. Press coverage of public expenditure of Master Settlement Agreement funds: how are non-tobacco control related expenditures represented? Tobacco Control 2003; 12: 257-263.

Wakefield M, Durrant R, Terry-McElrath Y, Ruel E, Balch GI, Anderson S, Szczypka G, Emery S, Flay B. Appraisal of anti-smoking advertising by youth at risk for regular smoking: A comparative study in the United States, Australia, and Britain. Tobacco Control 2003; 12 (Suppl II): ii82-ii86.

Durrant R, Wakefield M, Clegg-Smith K, Chapman S. Tobacco in the news: An analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues in Australia. Tobacco Control 2003; 12 (Suppl II):ii75-ii81.

USA: The Name of Philip Morris to Sit on 28 Million School Desks, Wakefield M, Clegg Smith K. Tobacco Control: An International Journal, Volume 10, Number 6 (March 2001).


ImpacTeen Illicit Drug Legislative Database

The Impacteen Illicit Drug Legislative Database provides data on statutory laws enacted in each state addressing three major issues: (1) controlled substances scheduling, (2) penalties for sale or possession of selected substances, and (3) medical marijuana provisions. All data reflect laws in effect as of January 1, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The data are available in the following separate data files:

  • Controlled Substances Scheduling (Drug Schedule 1999-2001.xls – 101 KB; Codebook (PDF) – 132 KB) -Provides the schedule number and DEA number assigned to each substance as well as information on the state authority designated to control the scheduling in each state. The particular substances of interest are Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Rohypnol, GHB, Ecstasy (MDMA), and Ketamine.
  • Penalties for Sale or Possession of Selected Substances (Penalty Data 1999-2001.xls – 3.08 MB; Codebook (PDF) – 131 KB) – Presents information addressed in state legislation on sale and possession penalties associated with each substance. Addresses Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Rohypnol, GHB, Ecstasy (MDMA), and Ketamine. Outlines penalty information for first offense including quantity triggers, maximum and minimum fines, maximum and minimum imprisonment, fine and imprisonment linking mechanisms, and offense classification. If penalties are increased for a second or subsequent offense those penalties are also specified. Corresponding statutory citations, including effective and enacted dates, to legislation containing such information are included for selected data years
  • Medical Marijuana (Medical Marijuana 1999-2001.xls – 131 KB; Codbook (PDF) 15.4 KB) – Provides statutory citations, including enacted and effective dates, for any medical marijuana legislation enacted in the state. Further specifies the classification of the legislation indicating if it is a statute enabling therapeutic research, reclassification, physician prescription, patient use, or patient/caregiver possession; or if it provides an affirmative defense for medical marijuana use/possession/prescription/consultation. Also gives information on the types of diseases for which marijuana may be used for medicinal purposes; registry provisions; as well as state, home and physician supply mechanisms where provided for in the legislation.