Abstract
We examined the prevalence and correlates of anticipated responses to hypothetical cigar price increases. Data are from a 2021 representative sample of United States adults who reported past-30-day cigar use (n=454; mean age=39.8 years). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions assessed correlates of behavior change responses. If cigar price increased, 77.2% intend to pay more, 44.7% intend to reduce use, and 39.9%, 37.7%, and 17.1% intend to use other tobacco, cannabis, and cheaper cigars, respectively. Those who smoked cigarillos (vs. other cigars) had higher odds of intending to pay more (AOR=2.73; 95%CI=1.41–5.29) and use other tobacco (AOR=2.35; 95%CI=1.26–4.36). Those who smoked within 5 minutes of waking (vs.>60 minutes) had higher odds of intending to use cheaper cigars (AOR=5.19, 95%CI=1.38–19.46). Almost half of US adults who report past-30-day cigar use may reduce cigar smoking in response to price increases, though behavioral response may depend on cigar type smoked and tobacco dependence.
Keywords: Cigars, Non-Cigarette Tobacco Products, Public Policy, Tobacco Control
In the United States (US), non-cigarette-combusted tobacco use increased over 100% between 2000 and 2015 (Jawad et al. 2018). This increase was largely driven by cigars, which lack restrictions such as taxes and pack size requirements that led to decreases in cigarette use (Delnevo et al. 2017). Increasing the price of cigars to reduce cigar use may be especially important given the low prices of some cigars. Cigarillos are often sold in small pack sizes for less than $1.00, and filtered cigars often come in pack sizes of 20 yet are sold for substantially less than cigarettes (Delnevo et al. 2017; Giovenco et al. 2018). Cigar use can lead to negative health effects, including cancers, heart disease, and stroke (National Cancer Institute 1998). Therefore, identifying strategies to reduce cigar use is critical.
Evidence from cigarette and limited cigar literature indicates that in response to price increases, consumers may change their purchasing and use behaviors. Changes may include reducing consumption, switching to lower-priced brands or other tobacco products, and paying more for the product (Choi and Boyle 2018; Critchlow et al. 2021). However, tobacco policies are not always equitably implemented or effective (Hafez et al. 2019), as responses to tobacco product price increases differ by consumers’ sociodemographic characteristics and tobacco use history. For example, younger adults appear to be more price-sensitive than older adults (Dunlop, Perez, and Cotter 2011), and Black adults are more likely to report affordability as a factor for cigar smoking (Dunn et al. 2021). Additionally, cigarette studies indicate adults with higher levels of tobacco dependence are more likely to continue to smoke given price increases (Critchlow et al. 2021). Therefore, this study (1) estimated anticipated behavior changes in response to hypothetical cigar price increases and (2) examined the sociodemographic and tobacco use characteristics associated with anticipated responses. Findings may help clarify the potential impact of cigar price increases to inform policymaking to reduce cigar use.
Methods
Sample and Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected in 2021 from a nationally representative sample of 1,700 adults (≥21 years; mean age=43.0 years) who reported current and recent tobacco use, with oversampling of non-Hispanic Asian and Black/African American individuals through the YouGov online panel. Our team defined the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample and developed the survey. YouGov created a sampling frame using data from the American Community Survey and the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study to recruit a matching sample within its panel with comparable demographic and tobacco use characteristics. YouGov then weighted the survey responses to be nationally representative of US adults who report current and recent former tobacco use. YouGov obtained informed consent and provided compensation. The current analysis was restricted to respondents who reported past-30-day use of cigars (large cigars, cigarillos, and filtered cigars; n=454; mean age=39.8 years). The current analysis did not require review or approval by the National Institutes of Health Institutional Review Board per 45 CFR 46 because it only involved deidentified data and therefore is considered “not human subjects research.”
Measures
Anticipated Responses to Cigar Price Increases
Respondents were asked, “Which of the following would you do if cigars were getting more expensive?” with the options of “Cut down on cigar smoking,” “Pay more for cigar products,” “Use other tobacco products,” “Use cannabis,” “Use cheaper cigars,” and “Other: please specify” (Critchlow et al. 2021; Dunlop, Perez, and Cotter 2011). Respondents were asked to choose all that apply. Responses in the “other” category were reviewed and recoded to one of the five provided categories. Each anticipated response was treated as separate binary variables (Yes/No).
Sociodemographic and Tobacco Use Characteristics
Respondents reported their demographic information and past-30-day use of commercial tobacco products (see Table 1). Each type of cigar was examined separately due to reported differences in sociodemographic and use characteristics across cigar types (Azagba, King, and Shan 2021). Past-30-day blunt smoking was examined because cigars are commonly used as blunts. Time to first tobacco use was assessed based on the question, “Think about all the tobacco products you currently use, how soon do you use one of these products after waking?” with the responses of “<5 minutes,” “6–29 minutes,” “30–59 minutes,” and “>60 minutes.”
Table 1.
Distributions of respondent characteristics overall and by anticipated responses to hypothetical cigar price increases among a nationally representative sample of adults who used cigars in the past 30 days (n=454)
| Total | Cut Down on Cigars | Pay More for Cigars | Use Other Tobacco Products | Use Cannabis | Use Cheaper Cigars | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||||||
| % | P-value | % | P-value | % | P-value | % | P-value | % | P-value | |||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Total | 44.7 | 77.2 | 39.9 | 37.3 | 17.1 | |||||||
| Age | 0.1813 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.001 | 0.1951 | |||||||
| 21–30 | 36.2 | 38.6 | 78.6 | 44.3 | 57.1 | 12.6 | ||||||
| 31–40 | 30.7 | 40.2 | 82.5 | 49.8 | 36.2 | 12.8 | ||||||
| 41–50 | 15.5 | 52.7 | 82.2 | 31.5 | 23.4 | 28.6 | ||||||
| ≥51 | 17.6 | 57.9 | 60.5 | 20.9 | 10.7 | 23.8 | ||||||
| Sex | 0.1597 | 0.2703 | 0.2090 | 0.5364 | 0.6387 | |||||||
| Female | 27.3 | 36.9 | 81.5 | 46.8 | 40.7 | 15.1 | ||||||
| Male | 72.7 | 47.7 | 75.5 | 37.3 | 36.0 | 17.9 | ||||||
| Race/Ethnicity | 0.7184 | 0.7474 | 0.5521 | <0.01 | 0.3018 | |||||||
| Non-Hispanic White | 44.9 | 45.6 | 76.9 | 50.4 | 25.7 | 21.7 | ||||||
| Non-Hispanic Black | 24.2 | 41.8 | 72.9 | 57.7 | 50.7 | 15.5 | ||||||
| Non-Hispanic Asian | 5.5 | 35.2 | 79.5 | 68.8 | 54.2 | 13.5 | ||||||
| Hispanic | 21.7 | 41.0 | 82.7 | 75.3 | 45.4 | 12.7 | ||||||
| Non-Hispanic Other | 3.7 | 52.1 | 72.1 | 65.4 | 17.7 | 2.4 | ||||||
| Household Income | 0.5042 | 0.1103 | 0.1868 | 0.6576 | 0.3596 | |||||||
| ⩽$24,999 | 40.1 | 38.6 | 75.9 | 37.5 | 41.8 | 22.3 | ||||||
| $25,000–$59,999 | 31.0 | 48.9 | 82.4 | 41.9 | 34.5 | 11.7 | ||||||
| $60,000–$99,999 | 14.6 | 61.1 | 70.1 | 28.0 | 30.3 | 18.6 | ||||||
| ≥$100,000 | 14.3 | 35.8 | 76.6 | 54.2 | 38.1 | 12.7 | ||||||
| Highest Education Level | 0.0854 | 0.4988 | 0.4799 | 0.0796 | 0.5499 | |||||||
| ⩽High school | 51.4 | 38.5 | 77.0 | 39.7 | 43.1 | 19.8 | ||||||
| Some college | 27.9 | 56.0 | 73.6 | 35.2 | 36.0 | 14.7 | ||||||
| ≥Bachelor’s degree | 20.7 | 44.8 | 82.4 | 46.6 | 24.7 | 13.8 | ||||||
| Past-30-day Large Cigar Smoking | 0.7648 | 0.4988 | 0.4799 | 0.1505 | <0.01 | |||||||
| No | 68.3 | 44.0 | 76.4 | 40.9 | 34.0 | 21.7 | ||||||
| Yes | 31.7 | 46.2 | 78.9 | 37.6 | 44.4 | 7.3 | ||||||
| Past-30-day Cigarillo Smoking | 0.6268 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.1400 | 0.7519 | |||||||
| No | 45.0 | 42.8 | 69.3 | 28.5 | 31.4 | 18.0 | ||||||
| Yes | 55.0 | 46.3 | 83.6 | 49.1 | 42.1 | 16.1 | ||||||
| Past-30-day Filtered Cigar Smoking | 0.7807 | 0.1488 | 0.5840 | <0.05 | 0.6862 | |||||||
| No | 71.9 | 44.1 | 74.8 | 41.0 | 32.5 | 17.8 | ||||||
| Yes | 28.1 | 46.3 | 83.2 | 36.9 | 49.6 | 15.5 | ||||||
| Past-30-day Blunt Smoking | <0.05 | 0.3752 | 0.0537 | <0.001 | 0.0960 | |||||||
| No | 35.9 | 56.1 | 74.0 | 30.4 | 5.4 | 23.9 | ||||||
| Yes | 64.1 | 38.3 | 78.9 | 45.2 | 55.1 | 13.3 | ||||||
| Past-30-day Cigarette Smoking | 0.5656 | 0.1076 | 0.6460 | 0.1921 | <0.05 | |||||||
| No | 34.8 | 42.0 | 71.3 | 37.6 | 31.1 | 10.2 | ||||||
| Yes | 65.2 | 46.1 | 80.3 | 41.1 | 40.6 | 20.8 | ||||||
| Past-30-day E-cigarette Use | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.1151 | <0.01 | |||||||
| No | 46.6 | 53.1 | 37.5 | 30.1 | 31.0 | 27.4 | ||||||
| Yes | 53.4 | 37.3 | 78.0 | 48.4 | 42.7 | 8.1 | ||||||
| Time to First Tobacco Use | 0.5602 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.01 | <0.05 | |||||||
| ≥60 mins | 14.1 | 50.8 | 55.8 | 21.0 | 21.3 | 8.5 | ||||||
| 30–59 mins | 20.9 | 37.9 | 84.5 | 49.5 | 63.8 | 14.5 | ||||||
| 6–29 mins | 40.2 | 42.5 | 84.6 | 46.9 | 38.8 | 12.7 | ||||||
| ⩽5 mins | 24.8 | 50.5 | 71.1 | 31.1 | 21.6 | 31.3 | ||||||
Notes:
1. Bolded text indicates p-value<0.05
2. Percentages are weighted to be nationally representative
Statistical Analysis
All analyses were weighted to be nationally representative. Weighted distributions of respondent characteristics were estimated. The percentage of each behavior change response to hypothetical cigar price increases was estimated in the overall sample and by respondents’ characteristics. Pearson Chi-square tests were used to assess the bivariate associations between each behavior change intent and respondent characteristics. Weighted multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to examine the associations between respondent characteristics and each behavior change intent. Statistical significance was set to 0.05 (2-tailed). There were no missing data on variables included in the models. Data were analyzed using Stata 16.0 (College Station, TX).
Results
Respondent Characteristics and Anticipated Responses
Overall, 72.7% were male, 44.9% were non-Hispanic White, 24.2% were non-Hispanic Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, and the mean age was 39.8 years (SD=12.9 years); more than half (51.4%) had a high school education or less (Table 1). The most common behavior change intent in response to cigar price increases was to pay more for cigars (77.2%), followed by cutting down on cigar use (44.7%), using other tobacco products (39.9%), using cannabis (37.3%), or using cheaper cigars (17.1%). The most common tobacco products that the respondents would use in response to price increase were cigarettes (27.2%), e-cigarettes (23.0%), and smokeless tobacco (12.5%).
Correlates of Anticipated Responses to Cigar Price Increases
Bivariate associations between respondent characteristics and each anticipated response are reported in Table 1. In multivariable analyses (Table 2), those with greater odds of paying more for cigars included those who smoked cigarillos in the past 30 days (vs. non-use; AOR=2.73, 95% CI=1.41, 5.29), used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days (vs. non-use; AOR=2.09, 95% CI=1.06, 4.09), and smoked their first cigar within 30–59 minutes or 6–29 minutes of waking (vs. >60 minutes of waking; AOR=2.91, 95% CI=1.05, 8.06; and AOR=2.99, 95% CI=1.30, 6.91). Those with greater odds of responding they would use other tobacco products included those who smoked cigarillos in the past 30 days (vs. non-use; AOR=2.35, 95% CI=1.26, 4.36). Those with greater odds of responding they would use cannabis included those who smoked filtered cigars in the past 30 days (vs. non-use; AOR=2.72, 95% CI=1.35, 5.46) and used blunts in the past 30 days (vs. non-use; AOR=11.41, 95% CI=4.09, 31.86). Additionally, adults 41–50 years (AOR=0.37, 95% CI=0.15, 0.90) and older (AOR=0.28, 95% CI=0.09, 0.89) had lower odds of responding they would use cannabis relative to those 21–30 years old. Those with greater odds of responding they would use less expensive cigars included those who smoked their first cigar within 5 minutes of waking (vs. >60 minutes of waking; AOR=5.19, 95% CI=1.38, 19.46). Those with lower odds of using less expensive cigars included adults who smoked large/premium cigars (vs. non-use; AOR=0.38, 95% CI=0.16, 0.93) and those who used e-cigarettes (vs. non-use; AOR=0.26, 95% CI=0.11, 0.61). None of the respondent characteristics examined were associated with cutting down on cigar use.
Table 2.
Association between covariates and anticipated responses to hypothetical cigar price increases among a nationally representative sample of adults who used cigars in the past 30 days (n=454)
| Cut Down on Cigars | Pay More for Cigars | Use Other Tobacco Products | Use Cannabis | Use Cheaper Cigars | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||||||
| AOR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI | ||
|
| |||||||||||
| Age | |||||||||||
| 21–30 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| 31–40 | 0.85 | 0.45, 2.01 | 1.53 | 0.69, 3.42 | 1.40 | 0.63, 3.14 | 0.49 | 0.22, 1.05 | 1.26 | 0.43, 3.76 | |
| 41–50 | 0.89 | 0.37, 2.64 | 1.94 | 0.68, 5.46 | 0.82 | 0.31, 2.22 | 0.37 | 0.15, 0.90 | 2.00 | 0.59, 6.75 | |
| ≥51 | 1.06 | 0.42, 2.66 | 0.67 | 0.25, 1.77 | 0.57 | 0.20, 1.65 | 0.28 | 0.09, 0.89 | 2.27 | 0.67, 7.80 | |
| Sex | |||||||||||
| Female | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Male | 1.66 | 0.86, 3.21 | 0.81 | 0.41, 1.60 | 0.79 | 0.39, 1.57 | 0.93 | 0.45, 1.94 | 1.01 | 0.42, 2.40 | |
| Race/Ethnicity | |||||||||||
| White | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Black | 1.09 | 0.51, 2.34 | 0.59 | 0.25, 1.37 | 1.06 | 0.46, 2.41 | 1.97 | 0.86, 4.53 | 0.64 | 0.25, 1.67 | |
| Asian | 0.84 | 0.32, 2.15 | 0.43 | 0.12, 1.89 | 1.28 | 0.44, 3.73 | 1.94 | 0.77, 4.88 | 1.65 | 0.34, 8.02 | |
| Hispanic | 1.06 | 0.47, 2.22 | 0.86 | 0.33, 1.82 | 0.99 | 0.44, 2.24 | 1.41 | 0.56, 3.59 | 1.01 | 0.37, 2.75 | |
| Other | 1.52 | 0.45, 5.11 | 0.88 | 0.20, 3.56 | 1.84 | 0.47, 7.20 | 0.44 | 0.10, 2.15 | 0.11 | 0.02, 1.07 | |
| Household Income | |||||||||||
| ⩽$24,999 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| $25,000−$59,999 | 1.45 | 0.67, 3.11 | 1.11 | 0.40, 2.57 | 1.10 | 0.50, 2.51 | 0.54 | 0.22, 1.32 | 0.52 | 0.19, 1.41 | |
| $60,000−$99,999 | 2.58 | 0.98, 6.76 | 0.46 | 0.18, 1.27 | 0.61 | 0.22, 1.72 | 1.10 | 0.40, 3.04 | 1.02 | 0.26, 4.09 | |
| ≥$100,000 | 0.85 | 0.31, 2.32 | 0.81 | 0.18, 2.52 | 2.51 | 0.99, 6.37 | 1.33 | 0.48, 3.70 | 0.96 | 0.22, 4.31 | |
| Highest Education Level | |||||||||||
| ⩽High school | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Some college | 1.85 | 0.92, 3.72 | 1.01 | 0.51, 2.07 | 1.17 | 0.55, 2.46 | 0.91 | 0.43, 1.96 | 0.66 | 0.27, 1.65 | |
| ≥Bachelor’s degree | 1.22 | 0.51, 2.92 | 2.18 | 0.76, 6.27 | 1.33 | 0.59, 3.02 | 0.40 | 0.16, 0.96 | 0.77 | 0.20, 3.00 | |
| Past-30-day Large Cigar Smoking | |||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 1.16 | 0.61, 2.21 | 1.47 | 0.61, 3.42 | 0.79 | 0.35, 1.50 | 1.67 | 0.83, 3.37 | 0.38 | 0.16, 0.93 | |
| Past-30-day Cigarillo Smoking | |||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 1.45 | 0.82, 2.57 | 2.73 | 1.41, 5.29 | 2.35 | 1.26, 4.36 | 1.28 | 0.61, 2.68 | 0.81 | 0.35, 1.89 | |
| Past-30-day Filtered Cigar Smoking | |||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 1.14 | 0.60, 2.16 | 2.02 | 0.90, 4.54 | 0.86 | 0.44, 1.67 | 2.72 | 1.35, 5.46 | 0.58 | 0.23, 1.48 | |
| Past-30-day Blunt Smoking | |||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 0.56 | 0.29, 1.08 | 0.66 | 0.29, 1.49 | 1.07 | 0.50, 2.32 | 11.41 | 4.09, 31.86 | 0.87 | 0.47, 2.06 | |
| Past-30-day Cigarette Smoking | |||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 1.10 | 0.61, 1.99 | 1.41 | 0.71, 2.78 | 1.18 | 0.59, 2.37 | 1.14 | 0.55, 2.37 | 2.17 | 0.99, 4.73 | |
| Past-30-day E-cigarette Use | |||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 0.66 | 0.34, 1.27 | 2.09 | 1.06, 4.09 | 1.72 | 0.85, 3.48 | 0.98 | 0.48, 2.02 | 0.26 | 0.11, 0.61 | |
| Time to First Tobacco Use | |||||||||||
| ≥60 mins | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| 30–59 mins | 0.85 | 0.31, 2.30 | 2.91 | 1.05, 8.06 | 2.55 | 0.84, 7.72 | 3.11 | 1.01, 9.32 | 3.44 | 0.77, 15.51 | |
| 6–29 mins | 1.04 | 0.45, 2.41 | 2.99 | 1.30, 6.91 | 2.32 | 0.85, 6.37 | 0.79 | 0.28, 2.24 | 2.39 | 0.62, 9.22 | |
| ⩽5 mins | 1.43 | 0.54, 3.77 | 1.21 | 0.49, 2.99 | 1.44 | 0.45, 4.57 | 0.51 | 0.16, 1.67 | 5.19 | 1.38, 19.46 | |
Notes:
1. Bolded text indicates p-value<0.05
Discussion
This population-level study examined the prevalence and correlates of anticipated responses to hypothetical cigar price increases among US adults. While nearly half of the sample stated they would reduce their cigar use in response to cigar price increases, over one-third of those respondents also stated they would switch to another tobacco product. Estimates based on 8.7 million US adults reporting past-30-day cigar use in 2019 (Cornelius 2020) indicate this could translate to over 2.5 million adults reducing cigar use without switching to another product, substantially reducing population health harm associated with cigar smoking. Additionally, we did not identify any sociodemographic or tobacco-use factors associated with respondents stating they would reduce cigar use; this might suggest that the policy’s benefit of decreasing cigar use may extend equitably across respondent characteristics.
Policies that result in equitable pricing across communities, and equitable decreases in use across populations are critical to reducing the impact of the tobacco industry’s targeted marketing to vulnerable populations. Evaluations of pricing policies, along with the findings from the present study, indicate increasing cigar prices may be an approach to equitably reduce cigar use if implementation and enforcement are consistent across communities. Future studies may explore the relationship between theory-driven constructs and behavior change intents related to social determinants or intersectionality to better understand equitable behavior change.
Over two-thirds of adults currently using cigars reported they would pay more for cigars in response to an increase in cigar prices. Current cigarillo use was associated with greater odds of responding to pay more. Respondents may have perceived that cigarillos would remain inexpensive even with price increases, as the median unit price for cigarillos in 2016 was $1.33 (Giovenco et al. 2018). This finding also might reflect a greater demand among adults who prefer cigarillos. As such, to reduce cigarillo use, the degree of price increase may need to be more extensive than for other types of cigars.
Our results also suggest switching to or increasing the use of other tobacco and cannabis products may be notable unintended consequences of cigar price increases. Concurrent use of multiple tobacco products and switching between tobacco products is common among adults who use cigars (Edwards et al. 2020). As indicated in our results, adults who smoke cigars may be especially likely to switch to smoking cigarettes given price increases. This is concerning given the escalated harm and delayed cessation when co-using multiple types of combustible tobacco (Edwards et al. 2020). Further, switching to cannabis or cannabis co-use in response to cigar price increase may be concerning because cannabis use is linked to a series of short-term and long-term negative mental and physical health outcomes (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017).
Adults who report past-30-day cigar smoking may also switch to use cheaper cigars. This result further demonstrates that public policies aimed at increasing cigar prices may need to prioritize extremely affordable cigar products, especially discounted cigarillos and filtered cigars, to reduce switching to more affordable products. Though we did not identify differences by income level, some may express concern that regressive policies may increase the burden on lower-income populations. However, tobacco price increases have been shown to be progressive when considering health and tobacco-related expenses (Fuchs et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2014).
Study Limitations
The study has the following limitations. First, the responses examined in the current study are not exhaustive. Responses not assessed include smoking illegal products or using other substances to replace cigars. Similarly, respondents were forced to choose yes or no, which may not capture those who were undecided in their potential responses. Second, our study did not specify how much higher cigar product prices may reach, limiting our ability to understand respondents’ price elasticity. Third, because we did not assess current use of cigar expenditure minimization strategies, it is unclear to what extent respondents were already engaging in some of the potential responses. However, price increases influence the use of these strategies even among those already engaging in expenditure minimization (Choi and Boyle 2018). Finally, this study examined potential behavior, not actual behaviors. Responses provided may not reflect actual behavior change.
Conclusions
In response to hypothetical cigar price increases, close to half of US adults who smoke cigars report they would cut down on cigar smoking. The impacts of cigar price increases may depend on the cigar type smoked or an individual’s tobacco dependence level. Future studies may examine whether there are differences in behavior change intent based on price increase mechanism as well as explore the real-world changes in response to cigar price increases to better inform policy strategies aimed at reducing cigar smoking.
Impact Statement.
We surveyed a representative sample of US adults who smoke cigars and examined their anticipated responses to hypothetical cigar price increases. Over 2.5 million adults might reduce cigar use without switching products. Among all adults who reported they would reduce cigar use, we found similar findings by sociodemographic and tobacco use characteristics for intent to reduce use, suggesting reductions in use may extend equitably across sociodemographic and use groups. However, we also found that anticipated response varied based on cigar type smoked and tobacco dependence level, which may suggest policies may be less effective among those who consume cigarillos and have a shorter time to first use.
Funding Sources
This study is supported by the Division of Intramural Research, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. JCS was supported by grant R00CA242589 from the FDA/NCI, Penn/Rutgers TCORS (U54CA229973), and Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA072720). JLKJ was supported by funding from K01CA253235, from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (FDA CTP).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest
References
- Azagba Sunday, King Jessica L., and Shan Lingpeng. 2021. “Characteristics Differ Based on Usual Cigar-Type Use among U.S. Adults: Analysis from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey.” Preventive Medicine Reports 24: 101560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Choi Kelvin, and Boyle Raymond G. 2018. “Changes in Cigarette Expenditure Minimising Strategies before and after a Cigarette Tax Increase.” Tobacco Control 27(1): 99–104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cornelius Monica E. 2020. “Tobacco Product Use Among Adults — United States, 2019.” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 69. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6946a4.htm (November 25, 2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Critchlow Nathan, Moodie Crawford, Best Catherine, and Stead Martine. 2021. “Anticipated Responses to a Hypothetical Minimum Price for Cigarettes and Roll-Your-Own Tobacco: An Online Cross-Sectional Survey with Cigarette Smokers and Ex-Smokers in the UK.” BMJ Open 11(3): e042724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Delnevo Cristine D. et al. 2017. “Close, but No Cigar: Certain Cigars Are Pseudo-Cigarettes Designed to Evade Regulation.” Tobacco Control 26(3): 349–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dunlop Sally M., Perez Donna, and Cotter Trish. 2011. “Australian Smokers’ and Recent Quitters’ Responses to the Increasing Price of Cigarettes in the Context of a Tobacco Tax Increase.” Addiction (Abingdon, England) 106(9): 1687–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dunn Delaney S., Johnson Amanda L., Sterling Kymberle L., and Cohn Amy M. 2021. “Differences in Reasons for Little Cigar/Cigarillo Use across White and Black/African American Young Adult Users.” Addictive Behaviors 118: 106884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards Kathryn C. et al. 2020. “Longitudinal Pathways of Exclusive and Polytobacco Cigar Use among Youth, Young Adults and Adults in the USA: Findings from the PATH Study Waves 1–3 (2013–2016).” Tobacco Control 29(Suppl 3): s163–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fuchs Alan, Marquez Patricio V., Dutta Sheila, and Icaza Fernanda Gonzalez. 2019. Is Tobacco Taxation Regressive? Evidence on Public Health, Domestic Resource Mobilization, and Equity Improvements. Washington, DC: World Bank. Policy Note. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31575 (July 27, 2022). [Google Scholar]
- Giovenco Daniel P., Spillane Torra E., Mauro Christine M., and Martins Silvia S. 2018. “Cigarillo Sales in Legalized Marijuana Markets in the U.S.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 185: 347–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hafez Amy Y. et al. 2019. “Uneven Access to Smoke-Free Laws and Policies and Its Effect on Health Equity in the United States: 2000–2019.” American Journal of Public Health 109(11): 1568–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hill Sarah, Amos Amanda, Clifford David, and Platt Stephen. 2014. “Impact of Tobacco Control Interventions on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Smoking: Review of the Evidence.” Tobacco Control 23(e2): e89–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jawad Mohammed, Lee John Tayu, Glantz Stanton, and Millett Christopher. 2018. “Price Elasticity of Demand of Non-Cigarette Tobacco Products: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Tobacco Control 27(6): 689–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24625/the-health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-the-current-state (September 27, 2021). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Cancer Institute. 1998. Cigars: Health Effects and Trends. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/monograph-09 (November 10, 2021). [Google Scholar]