Smoking bans are better than higher tobacco taxes
A new research shows that smoking bans are better method than higher tobacco taxes to discourage smoking. The advantage is that smoking bans work best to stop casual smokers, or those who smoke less than one pack a day. Heavy taxes worked best with those who smoked more than a pack a day.
“Both taxes and bans have their place. But bans might stop casual smokers from becoming heavy tobacco users,” said Mike Vuolo, lead author of the study and assistant professor of sociology at The Ohio State University. “If you think of casual smoking as the beginning of the path to addiction, then bans might be the way to go.” he continues.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Public Health. Vuolo conducted the study with Brian Kelly and Joy Kadowaki of Purdue University.
Results showed that those residing in cities with bans were 21 percent less likely to currently smoke at all when compared to those who lived in cities without bans. But taxes did not have a significant effect on casual smokers.
“There’s a lot of evidence that casual, social smokers are influenced by their environment. If they can’t smoke inside with their friends at a restaurant or bar, they may choose not to smoke at all,” Vuolo said.
By contrast, those who smoked more than a pack a day were primarily deterred, not by the bans, but by the economic costs – in other words, higher taxes.
The fact that combining high taxes with smoking bans didn’t have an additional impact on smoking rates means that policymakers have several effective options for tobacco control, Vuolo said.
“They are both effective in different ways. Smoking bans might be more effective in preventing new smokers, but it definitely pays to do something,” he said.
