Policy Statement:  12/06/06

Increase the Price of Tobacco Products

 


Printable Version
(PDF)

     

Position

 

The South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network supports initiatives that increase the price of tobacco products, including increases in the state tax on tobacco products, as a mechanism to decrease tobacco consumption, especially among children and pregnant women, and to provide a means of funding comprehensive tobacco prevention and cessation programs. 

 

Background

 

Increased tobacco taxes reduce tobacco use, especially among children and pregnant women, while increasing revenue.

 

The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, a National Cancer Institute Expert Panel on cigarette excise taxes, and the tobacco industry itself, have stated that increasing tobacco prices is probably the most effective deterrent to tobacco use.[i]

·         Economic research studies over the past 15 years conclude that every 10% increase in the real price of cigarettes will reduce total adult smoking by 4% and reduce teen smoking by roughly 7%.[ii]

·         Studies also show that higher excise tax rates reduce smoking rates among pregnant women.  Every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce smoking among pregnant women by 7% and reduce smoking-related health complications among pregnant women and their infants.[iii]

·         Studies show that a 10% increase in smokeless tobacco prices reduces adult consumption by 3.7% and reduces male youth consumption by 5.9%, with two-thirds of the reduction coming from kids stopping any use of smokeless tobacco at all.[iv]

 

 

Many states have taken action to increase tobacco taxes to reduce tobacco use and provide a source of revenue to offset deficits and fund health programs.

 

Forty-three states, including South Dakota, have raised their cigarette taxes since January 2002.   South Dakota’s most recent tax increase went into effect on January 1, 2007. Twenty-two states, as well as Guam, Puerto Rico, and Northern Marianas, have a tobacco cigarette tax of $1.00 or more per pack.  The average state tax on a pack of cigarettes is now  $1.00.[v]  These price increases will result in fewer teen smokers, a reduction in future health care costs and a significant increase in state revenues. 

 

Increasing the state tobacco tax should be a part of the state’s comprehensive strategy to reduce tobacco use in South Dakota.

 

Price increases alone are not sufficient to sustain reduced levels of tobacco use. They must be coupled with efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, community and school based programs, counter-advertising, active enforcement, and cessation and healthcare services to reduce the impact of tobacco use on the state.

 

Evidence from other state and national experiences: 

 

·         In 2003, South Dakota raised its cigarette tax by 20 cents to 53 cents per pack (a 5.4% increase in total price).  As a result, cigarette consumption declined by 3.5% and state revenues increased by 23% ($5.9 million in new revenue). In contrast, smokeless tobacco consumption in South Dakota increased 2.9% over the same period.[vi]

·         In 1995, South Dakota raised its cigarette tax by 10 cents to 33 cents per pack.  As a result, consumption declined by 5.6% and state revenues increased by 40% ($6.1 million in new revenue).[vii]

·         Canada provides a clear example of how increasing tobacco prices can reduce use.  From 1981 to 1992, due to several major cigarette tax increases, smoking declined by 38% overall and by 60% among teenagers.  Since 1994, the Canadian cigarette tax was sharply reduced.  According to the Canadian government, smoking has increased by nearly 10% after nearly 15 years of continuous decline.[viii]

·         In 2001, Wisconsin raised its cigarette tax by 18 cents  to 77 cents per pack. This resulted in a 7.6% decline in consumption, while state revenue increased over 20% or $50 million in new revenue.[ix]

·         In 2002, Illinois raised its cigarette tax by 40 cents to 98 cents per pack. As a result, consumption declined 27.6% and state revenue increased 38.5%[x].

·          Indiana raised its cigarette tax by 40 cents to 55 cents per pack in 2002, and state cigarette consumption declined 16.7% while revenues increased 206.5% or $227 million in new revenue.[xi]

                                                                                    

South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network, 12/06/06

 

The South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network is funded by contributions and in-kind services from its 46 member organizations.  The South Dakota Tobacco-Free Kids Network does not receive any funding from the state or from South Dakota’s share of the 1998 Multi-State Tobacco Settlement agreement. For more information about the Network, please visit our website at www.sdtobaccofree.org.

 

 

[i]   “Taking Action to Reduce Tobacco,” National Institute of Medicine Report  (1998).  “Reducing Tobacco Use,” U.S. Surgeon General’s Report (2000).  R.J. Reynolds Executive D.S. Burrows, “Estimated Change in Industry Trend Following Federal Excise Tax Increase” RJR Document No. 501988846-8848, September 20, 1982.  Philip Morris Research Executive, Myron Johnston “Teenage Smoking and the Federal Excise Tax on Cigarettes” PM Document No.2001255224, September 17, 1981.

[ii]  Chaloupka, F. “The Effect of Prices and Tobacco Control Policies on the Demand for Tobacco Products,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research (1999), and other studies at www/uic.edu/~fjc/.

[iii] Ringel, J. & W. Evans, “Cigarette Taxes and Smoking During Pregnancy,” American Journal of Public Health, November 2001. Evans, W.  & J. Ringel, “Can higher cigarette taxes improve birth outcomes?” Journal of Public Economics, 1999. 

[iv] Chaloupka, F. et al., “Public Policy and Youth Smokeless Tobacco Use,” Southern Economic Journal, 64(2): 503-516, 1997, http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/presentations/scans/final PDFs/sej1997.pdf.

[v] National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, State Cigarette Excise Tax Rates and Rankings.  July 2006.

[vi] South Dakota Department of Revenue, September 20, 2004.

[vii] Orzechowski and Walker., Tax Burden on Tobacco (2000), (2001)  (2002),  and (2003). Economic Research Service, USDA.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), State Tobacco Control Highlights (2001), (2002), and (2003).

[viii] Orzechowski and Walker., Tax Burden on Tobacco (2000), (2001)  (2002),  and (2003). Economic Research Service, USDA.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), State Tobacco Control Highlights (2001), (2002), and (2003).

[ix] Orzechowski and Walker., Tax Burden on Tobacco (2000), (2001)  (2002),  and (2003). Economic Research Service, USDA.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), State Tobacco Control Highlights (2001), (2002), and (2003).

[x] Orzechowski and Walker., Tax Burden on Tobacco (2000), (2001)  (2002),  and (2003). Economic Research Service, USDA.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), State Tobacco Control Highlights (2001), (2002), and (2003).

[xi] Orzechowski and Walker., Tax Burden on Tobacco (2000), (2001)  (2002),  and (2003). Economic Research Service, USDA.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), State Tobacco Control Highlights (2001), (2002), and (2003).

 

Back to Top   Home