Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Economics of Tobacco Sales :: Economics Essays
H1 States with Smoking Bans and Cigarette SalesEach social class 440,000 people die, in the United States alone, from the effects of bum hummer (American crab louse Society, 2004). As discussed by Scheraga & Calfee (1996) as early as the 1950s the U.S. government has utilized some(prenominal) methods to curb the incidence of smoking, from fear advertising to print health warnings. Kao & Tremblay (1988) and Tremblay & Tremblay (1995) agreed that these early interventions by the U.S. government were instrumental in the diminution of the national demand for tooshies in the United States. In more than recent years, assure governments have joined in the battle against smoking by introducing antismoking regulations. In a research article by Gallet (2004), several thoughts of the clean indoor-air laws were closely examined. Set apart from other literary productions on the same topic, Gallet (2004) proposed that the degree of enforcement of these laws was just as important as th e laws themselves. States that keep the most restrictive clean-air laws encouraged much more competition at bottom the cigarette industry hence prices were adjusted closer to marginal toll which caused the availability of supply to increase (Gallet, 2004). Conversely, Keeler, Barnett, Manning, & Sung (1996) concluded that the price adaptation closer to marginal demand could be explained as an attempt to level for the reduction of demand caused by the antismoking laws. Regardless of the opinions of the papers on this aspect of the clean indoor-air laws, both agreed that state regulations that prohibit or restrain smoking in public places decreased the cigarette demand. Extraneous variables, excluding state smoking restrictions, may influence state cigarette sales. State cigarette sales may be influenced by bootlegging, identified as the crossway of state lines to purchase cigarettes in a state that sells cigarettes at a less expensive price (Gallet, 2004 Meier & Licari, 1997) . Gallet (2004) identified bootlegging as Nprice, or the minimum neighbor state price ($). As stated previously, Gallet (2004) examined non only states with clean indoor-air laws, Clean1, but also the degree to which these laws were enforced within the individual states, Clean2. The consensus of the reviewed literature, those both including and excluding the extraneous variable, found that the institutions of state smoking bans simulate cigarette sales.DiscussionThe results of this study are consistent with the overall literatures findings (Gallet, 2004 Meirer & Licari, 1997) that states with smoking bans have a decrease in cigarette sales. However, caution is warranted in the true reliability of the data presented in this study, because of the reputation of the data.