Would banning menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, and flavored e-cigarettes prompt users to seek illicit channels for obtaining them in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Banning flavors in tobacco and nicotine products may reduce youth initiation and prompt quit attempts but such bans may lead to illicit markets. We examined how likely current users would be to seek flavored products from illicit channels under various ban scenarios. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys of 2552 current users of menthol cigarettes or flavored cigars and 2347 users of flavored e-cigarettes were conducted between 2021 and 2022 in the United States. For each ban scenario, respondents reported if they would have intentions to seek the banned flavored products from any illicit channels and identified the specific illicit channel they would consider. Logistic regressions were used to estimate how the likelihood of having intentions to seek illicit channels was associated with demographics, ban scenarios, and status of tobacco use. RESULTS: Under various ban scenarios, 24-30% of people who smoked said they would seek illicit channels to obtain the banned products compared with 21-41% of dual users and 35-39% of users of flavored e-cigarettes. Online retailers were favored by people who smoked while users of flavored e-cigarettes favored local retailers. Heavy users were more likely to say they would try illicit channels. Under bans restricting more types of flavored tobacco products, users would be less likely to try illegal channels. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of users of flavored tobacco and nicotine products would not reject using illicit banned products. Tailored programs are needed to apply to the groups with a higher risk of seeking illicit channels for banned products.

The impact of flavored e-cigarette bans on e-cigarette use in three US states.

Introduction: Beginning in 2019, several U.S. states implemented temporary or permanent bans on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. This study examined the impact of flavor bans on adult e-cigarette use in Washington, New Jersey, and New York. Methods: Adults who used e-cigarettes at least once a week before the flavor bans were recruited online. Respondents reported their e-cigarette use, primarily used flavor, and ways of obtaining e-cigarettes before and after the bans. Descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression models were applied. Results: After the ban, 8.1% of respondents (N=1624) quit using e-cigarettes, those primarily used banned menthol or other flavors declined from 74.4% to 50.8, those using tobacco-flavored declined from 20.1% to 15.6%, and those using non-flavored increased from 5.4% to 25.4%. More frequent e-cigarette use and smoking cigarettes were associated with being less likely to quit e-cigarettes and more likely to use banned flavors. Of those primarily using banned flavors, 45.1% obtained e-cigarettes from in-state stores, 31.2% from out-of-state stores, 32% from friends, family, or others, 25.5% from Internet/mail sellers, 5.2% from illegal sellers, 4.2% mixed flavored e-liquids themselves, and 6.9% stocked up on e-cigarettes before the ban. Conclusions: Most respondents continued to use e-cigarettes with banned flavors post-ban. Compliance of local retailers with the ban was not high, and many respondents obtained banned-flavor e-cigarettes through legal channels. However, the significant increase in the use of non-flavored e-cigarettes post-ban suggests that these may serve as a viable alternative among those who used previously used banned or tobacco flavors.

Reactions to hypothetical flavor bans among current users of flavored e-cigarettes.

Banning flavors in e-cigarettes and other tobacco products may decrease their use. To examine how current users of flavored e-cigarettes might react to a ban on flavored e-cigarettes when: (i) menthol flavor is banned together with other flavors, or (ii) this ban on e-cigarettes is combined with a ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. A national cross-sectional survey of 2,347 current users of flavored e-cigarettes was conducted in May 2022. For each hypothetical ban scenario, respondents reported if they would quit all tobacco product use, continue to use e-cigarettes with no flavor or flavors that were not banned, or switch to alternative tobacco products. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to estimate the associations between responses and ban scenarios, adjusting for tobacco use and demographic variables. If e-cigarettes with any flavors except menthol and tobacco were banned, the majority of current e-cigarette users would keep using e-cigarettes with no flavor or tobacco and menthol flavor. When menthol flavor was added to a ban, a greater proportion of respondents would quit all tobacco use; however, more would also switch to cigarettes or cigars. When menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars were added to a ban, those who used menthol flavor only would be less likely to switch to cigarettes and cigars. Among current e-cigarette users, the harm reduction (i.e., from quitting all use) from a ban on flavored e-cigarettes, particularly if menthol is also banned, may be outweighed by the harm increases (i.e., switching to cigarettes or cigars, or other products that are more harmful than using e-cigarettes). A concurrent ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars would secure more certain net reductions to public health harms from e-cigarette use and smoking.

Banning flavors in e-cigarettes and other tobacco products has the potential to decrease their use. We examined how current users of flavored e-cigarettes might react to several hypothetical ban scenarios. We found that if e-cigarettes with any added flavors except tobacco or menthol were banned, the majority of current e-cigarette users would keep using non-flavored e-cigarettes or those with flavors that were not banned. When menthol flavor was added to a ban, a greater proportion of respondents would quit all tobacco use, however, more would also switch to cigarettes or cigars. When menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars were added to a ban, those who used menthol-flavor e-cigarettes only would be less likely to switch to cigarettes and cigars. Our study indicated that among current e-cigarette users, the harm-reduction resulting from a ban on flavored e-cigarettes, particularly when menthol was banned (i.e., from users quitting all use), may be outweighed by the harm increases (i.e., switching to cigarettes or cigars, or other products that are more harmful than using e-cigarettes). Concurrently banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars would secure more certain net harm reductions.

Tax incidence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in the USA.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of states or jurisdictions in the USA have imposed excise taxes on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). However, there is no consensus on how best to tax ENDS. OBJECTIVES: We specifically compare the tax incidence or burden for ENDS and cigarettes and analyse how ENDS tax incidence is associated with the choices of tax bases and rates. METHODS: We calculate ENDS excise tax incidence as the percentage of retail prices for each state or jurisdiction. Next, we use ordinary least squares to evaluate how tax incidence is associated with the choices of tax bases (eg, a specific tax base vs a value or ad valorem tax base) and rates and how these associations are moderated by product types. RESULTS: ENDS and cigarette tax incidence is similar at the state level. Nonetheless, when federal cigarette taxes are considered, the cigarette tax incidence is higher than the tax incidence on closed-system ENDS. The proportion of states that impose value taxes is higher for open systems (65.4%) than for closed systems (46.2%). A value tax base is associated with a 7 percentage point lower tax incidence compared with a specific tax base. Product type further moderates the association between tax base and incidence. CONCLUSION: Tax incidence can be used to measure the strength of ENDS tax policies and how they are compared with cigarette taxes. Policymakers who aim to prevent youth from using ENDS may consider a value tax base to raise the tax incidence of closed systems-the product type preferred by young people.

Impact of flavours, device, nicotine levels and price on adult e-cigarette users' tobacco and nicotine product choices.

INTRODUCTION: To understand the impact of e-cigarette devices, flavours, nicotine levels and prices on adult e-cigarette users' choices among closed-system and open-system e-cigarettes, cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs). METHODS: Online discrete choice experiments were conducted among adult (≥18 years) e-cigarette users (n=2642) in August 2020. Conditional logit regressions were used to assess the relative impact of product attributes and the interactions between product attributes and user characteristics, with stratified analyses to examine differences by smoking status and primarily used e-cigarette device and flavour. RESULTS: On average, participants preferred non-tobacco and non-menthol flavours most, preferred open-system over closed-system e-cigarettes and preferred regular nicotine level over low nicotine level. However, the preference varied by demographics, smoking status and the primarily used e-cigarette device and flavour. The differences in preference among products/devices were larger than the difference among flavours or nicotine levels. Participants who primarily used closed-system e-cigarettes exhibited similar preferences for closed-system and open-system e-cigarettes, but those who primarily used open-system e-cigarettes preferred much more open-system over closed-system e-cigarettes. HTP was the least preferred product, much lower than cigarettes in general, but participants living in states where IQOS is being sold had similar preferences to cigarettes and HTPs. CONCLUSIONS: People are unlikely to switch to another product/device because of the restriction of flavour or nicotine level. If non-tobacco and non-menthol flavours were banned from open-system e-cigarettes, users may switch to menthol flavour e-cigarettes. Intervention strategies should be tailored to specific groups.

Should menthol e-cigarettes be banned? Reaction of adult smokers and users of e-cigarettes to hypothetical bans.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines how current smokers using menthol cigarettes or flavoured cigars, and current users of flavoured e-cigarettes may respond to three hypothetical flavour-ban scenarios: (1) banning only menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars; (2) also banning e-cigarettes with any non-tobacco flavours except menthol; and (3) also banning e-cigarettes with any non-tobacco flavours, including menthol. METHODS: Recruited from mTurk, respondents were asked if they would quit all tobacco-nicotine use or continue or start using products that were still legally available. The patterns of responding to each ban scenario, for both flavoured smokers and users of non-tobacco flavoured e-cigarettes, were summarised. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to estimate associations between demographics, smoking or e-cigarette use status and reactions to a ban. RESULTS: A ban on menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars would lead to 12%-20% of flavoured smokers trying to quit all tobacco use and 32%-52% switching to non-flavoured smoking, with the remaining switching to e-cigarettes or other products. Compared with a ban on only menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars, also banning flavoured e-cigarettes would increase the likelihood of quitting all tobacco-nicotine use (OR=2.58) but also increase the likelihood of switching to non-flavoured smoking (OR=1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a ban on menthol cigarettes and flavoured cigars would decrease smoking. However, it is unclear if adding a ban of menthol e-cigarettes would lead to additional benefits because without menthol e-cigarettes as an alternative, some smokers and e-cigarette users may switch to non-flavoured tobacco smoking, rather than quit all tobacco use.

Risk and safety profile of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): an umbrella review to inform ENDS health communication strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This umbrella review aims to summarise the evidence about electronic nicotine delivery systems' (ENDS) risk and safety health profile to inform ENDS health communication strategies. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Six databases were searched for systematic reviews presenting evidence on ENDS-related health effects. Ninety reviews divided into five categories were included: toxicity=20, health effects=40, role in smoking cessation=24, role in transition to combustible cigarettes (CCs)=13 and industry marketing claims=4. DATA EXTRACTION: Findings were synthesised in narrative summaries. Meta-analyses were conducted by study type when appropriate. Quality assessment was conducted using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The Institute of Medicine's Levels of Evidence Framework was used to classify the evidence into high-level, moderate, limited-suggestive and limited-not-conclusive. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found high-level evidence that ENDS exposes users to toxic substances; increases the risk of respiratory disease; leads to nicotine dependence; causes serious injuries due to explosion or poisoning; increases smoking cessation in clinical trials but not in observational studies; increases CC initiation; and exposure to ENDS marketing increases its use/intention to use. Evidence was moderate for ENDS association with mental health and substance use, limited-suggestive for cardiovascular, and limited-not-conclusive for cancer, ear, ocular and oral diseases, and pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: As evidence is accumulating, ENDS communication can focus on high-level evidence on ENDS association with toxicity, nicotine addiction, respiratory disease, ENDS-specific harm (explosion, poisoning) and anti-ENDS industry sentiment. Direct comparison between the harm of CCs and ENDS should be avoided. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021241630.

How Smokers of Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars Might Respond to FDA's Proposed Bans.

INTRODUCTION: A ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars may reduce smoking and tobacco-related disparities. AIMS AND METHODS: We aimed to examine the response of current smokers to a hypothetical ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. Current smokers were recruited online and reported the alternative products that they may switch to under a hypothetical ban, if they would try to obtain the banned products from illicit channels, and their support to the ban. RESULTS: 51% of current smokers would use nonflavored cigarettes and cigars as alternatives, 45% would switch to flavored heated tobacco products or e-cigarettes or quit smoking. 17% would try to obtain the banned flavored products from illicit markets. A majority of menthol only smokers opposed the ban. Daily smokers would be more likely to switch to nonflavored smoking, to try illicit market products, and were less supportive of the ban. Black smokers would be less likely to switch to nonflavored smoking and were more supportive of the ban. Smokers who used menthol cigarettes only would be more likely to switch to nonflavored smoking, less likely to try illicit market sellers, and were the least supportive of the ban. CONCLUSIONS: In response to a ban of all added flavors for cigarettes or cigars, nearly half of the current smokers would quit smoking, largely by switching to nonsmoking products. However, smokers with more chronic use and those who used only menthol cigarettes would be more likely to switch to nonflavored smoking, diminishing the harm reduction potential. The ban may decrease the relatively higher prevalence of menthol cigarette smoking among Blacks compared with other groups. IMPLICATIONS: A ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars may decrease the prevalence of smoking because some current smokers may quit smoking and switch to nonsmoking products. However, smokers with more chronic use and those who used menthol cigarettes only were more likely to switch to nonflavored cigarettes or cigars, diminishing the harm reduction potential of the ban. Black smokers would be more likely to switch to products other than cigarettes and cigars thus decreasing their relatively higher prevalence of smoking compared with other groups.

Perceived health risks associated with the use of tobacco and nicotine products during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The perceived health risks of tobacco products may change during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to examine the perceived risks of tobacco use on COVID-19 infection and severity, and possible COVID-related changes in perceptions of tobacco use and overall health. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of adults in the United States in June 2020 (n=2097). The survey covered cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, and hookah. We also assessed changes in the use of any of the four tobacco products. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of agreeing with the perceived risks for each risk and each product, with the adjustment of demographic and COVID-19 related variables. RESULTS: For all four tobacco products, the perceived risks to general health were slightly higher during the pandemic than before the pandemic (77% vs 79.5% for cigarettes) and the perceived risk of COVID-19 severity was larger than the perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (73.3% vs 56.2% for cigarettes). All risk measures varied with tobacco products consistently, with the risks highest for cigarettes, then cigars, followed by e-cigarettes and hookah. Females and people with higher income or education were more likely to endorse the risks of tobacco use than their counterparts. People who perceived higher risks of using cigarettes (OR=1.65; 95% CI: 1.20-2.27) and cigars (OR=1.63; 95% CI: 1.17-2.27) to COVID-19 severity were more likely to have decreased or quit their use. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco/nicotine use was perceived to increase the risk of COVID-19 severity and the perceived risk of tobacco/nicotine use to general health was high during the pandemic, particularly for cigarettes. The change of perceived risks appeared to be prompting harm-reducing changes in tobacco product use.

Agent-based Modeling in Tobacco Regulatory Science: Exploring 'What if' in Waterpipe Smoking.

OBJECTIVES: Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is an emerging public health crisis, particularly among youth and young adults. Different from the use of other tobacco products and e-cigarettes, WTS tends to be a social activity occurring among friends or persons associated with social networks. In this paper, we review a potential strategy for WTS-related research. METHODS: As a bottom-up computational model, agent-based modeling (ABM) can simulate the actions and interactions of agents, as well as the dynamic interactions between agents and their environments, to gain an understanding of the functioning of a system. ABM is particularly useful for incorporating the influence of social networks in WTS, and capturing people's space-time activity and the spatial distribution of WTS venues. RESULTS: Comprehensive knowledge of WTS-related behaviors at the individual level is needed to take advantage of ABM and use it to examine policies such as the interaction between WTS and cigarette smoking and the effect of flavors used in waterpipe tobacco. Longitudinal and WTS-specific surveys and laboratory experiments are particularly helpful to understand WTS basic mechanisms and elicit individual preferences, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that the uniqueness of WTS makes ABM a promising tool to be used in WTS-related research, as well as understanding use of other tobacco products.

The impact of a comprehensive tobacco product flavor ban in San Francisco among young adults.

OBJECTIVE: Flavors play an important role in the initiation and use of tobacco products. The FDA, states, and cities have been implementing or considering banning flavored e-cigarettes or any flavored tobacco products. This study empirically assessed the impact of one of the first comprehensive bans of all flavored tobacco products other than tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes among young adults in San Francisco, California. METHODS: Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, a sample of San Francisco residents aged 18-34 who previously used tobacco products (N = 247) were surveyed about their tobacco use both before and after the ban. Descriptive statistics and regression models were applied. RESULTS: The prevalence of overall flavored tobacco use decreased from 81% and 85% to 69% and 76% for 18-24 years and 25-34 years old, respectively. The prevalence of flavored e-cigarettes decreased from 57% and 56% to 45% and 48% for 18-24 years and 25-34 years old, respectively. The prevalence of cigars uses reduced as well. However, cigarette smoking increased, although not statistically significant among 25-34 years old. 66% of participants did not support the ban and 65% believed the ban had not been enforced completely. Most users reported being able to obtain flavored tobacco products in multiple ways despite the ban. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that comprehensive local flavor bans, by themselves, cannot sharply reduce the availability or use of flavored tobacco products among residents. Nevertheless, local bans can still significantly reduce overall e-cigarette use and cigar smoking but may increase cigarette smoking.

International differences in patterns of cannabis use among adult cigarette smokers: Findings from the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

BACKGROUND: Although evidence shows that co-use of cigarettes and cannabis is common, there is little research examining if co-use patterns vary depending on the regulatory environment for cannabis. This study examined patterns of co-use and perceptions of relative harm among cigarette smokers in four countries with different histories, and at different stages of cannabis legalization. METHODS: Data are from the 2018 International Tobacco Control 4CV Survey and included 10035 adult cigarette smokers from Canada, United States (US), Australia, and England. At the time of the survey, Canada and the US had relatively more permissive cannabis regulations compared to Australia and England. RESULTS: Among this sample of 10035 cigarette smokers, Canada had the highest rate of cannabis co-use in the last 12 months (36.3%), followed by the US (29.1%), England (21.6%), and Australia (21.4%). Among past 12 month co-users (n = 3134), the US (40.2%) and Canada (35.2%) had the highest rates of daily cannabis use, followed by smokers in England (26.3%) and Australia (21.7%); Australian co-users had the highest rate of infrequent (

Has FDA abandoned its efforts to make fake-cigar cigarettes comply with federal tobacco control laws that apply to cigarettes but not cigars?

In the USA, legal definitions of cigarettes and cigars are critical to tobacco control policy because federal, state and local laws typically tax and regulate cigarettes more strictly than cigars. In 2016, near the end of the Obama Administration, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent warning letters to four filtered 'little cigar' manufacturers stating that their so-called 'cigars' were cigarettes and, therefore, subject to more stringent public health restrictions. Documents produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request show that without explanation or public notice FDA has abandoned its prior determination that the manufacturers' 'little cigars' were actually cigarettes and, consequently, were violating the ban on flavoured cigarettes in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The documents also present the manufacturers' arguments against FDA's original position. However, those industry arguments are inconsistent with the research, other evidence and legal analysis indicating that filtered 'little cigars' meet the legal definition of cigarettes under the TCA and other similar federal, state and local definitions. To protect the public health, FDA must renew its efforts to ensure that these filtered 'little cigars' do not continue to evade compliance with the many important restrictions and requirements that apply to cigarettes but not cigars. Other government regulatory and tax-collection agencies with similar definitions need to follow suit.

Cross-country comparison of cigarette and vaping product marketing exposure and use: findings from 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To compare exposure to and use of certain cigarette and vaping product marketing among adult smokers and vapers in four countries with contrasting regulations-Australia (AU), Canada, England and the USA. DATA SOURCES: Adult smokers and vapers (n=12 294) from the 2016 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (4CV1). ANALYSIS: Self-reported exposure to cigarette and vaping product advertising through point-of-sale, websites/social media, emails/texts, as well as exposure to and use of price offers were assessed for country differences using logistic regression models adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Reported exposure to cigarette advertising exposure at point-of-sale was higher in the USA (52.1%) than in AU, Canada and England (10.5%-18.5%). Exposure to cigarette advertising on websites/social media and emails/texts was low overall (1.5%-10.4%). Reported exposure to vaping ads at point-of-sale was higher in England (49.3%) and USA (45.9%) than in Canada (32.5%), but vaping ad exposure on websites/social media in Canada (15.1%) was similar with England (18.4%) and the USA (12.1%). Exposure to vaping ads via emails/texts was low overall (3.1%-9.9%). Exposure to, and use of, cigarette price offers was highest in the USA (34.0 % and 17.8 %, respectively), but the use rate among those exposed was highest in AU (64.9%). Exposure to, and use of, price offers for vaping products was higher in the USA (42.3 % and 21.7 %) than in AU, Canada and England (25.9%-31.5 % and 7.4%-10.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of cigarette and vaping product marketing exposure generally reflected country-specific policies, except for online vaping ads. Implications for research and policy are discussed.

Discussions between health professionals and smokers about nicotine vaping products: results from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Debate exists about whether health professionals (HPs) should advise smokers to use nicotine vaping products (NVPs) to quit smoking. The objectives were to examine in four countries: (1) the prevalence of HP discussions and recommendations to use an NVP; (2) who initiated NVP discussions; (3) the type of HP advice received about NVPs; and (4) smoker's characteristics related to receiving advice about NVPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using multivariable logistic regression analyses on weighted data from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey (ITC 4CV1). SETTING: Four countries with varying regulations governing the sale and marketing of NVPs: 'most restrictive' (Australia), 'restrictive' (Canada) or 'less restrictive' (England and United States). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6615 adult smokers who reported having visited an HP in the last year (drawn from the total sample of 12 294 4CV1 respondents, of whom 9398 reported smoking cigarettes daily or weekly). Respondents were from the United States (n = 1518), England (n = 2116), Australia (n = 1046), and Canada (n = 1935). MEASUREMENTS: Participants' survey responses indicated if they were current daily or weekly smokers and had visited an HP in the past year. Among those participants, further questions asked participants to report (1) whether NVPs were discussed, (2) who raised the topic, (3) advice received on use of NVPs and (4) advice received on quitting smoking. FINDINGS: Among the 6615 smokers who visited an HP in the last year, 6.8% reported discussing NVPs with an HP and 2.1% of smokers were encouraged to use an NVP (36.1% of those who had a discussion). Compared with Australia (4.3%), discussing NVPs with an HP was more likely in the United States [8.8%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-3.29] and Canada (7.8%, OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.26-2.78). Smokers in Australia were less likely to discuss NVPs than smokers in England (6.2%), although this was not statistically significant (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.98-2.20). Overall, the prevalence of HPs recommending NVPs was three times more likely in the United States than in Australia (OR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.45-6.47), and twice as likely in Canada (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.06-4.87) than in Australia. Australia and England did not differ (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 0.83-3.74). Just over half (54%) of respondents brought up NVPs themselves; there were no significant differences among countries. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States between smokers and health professionals about nicotine vaping products appear to be infrequent, regardless of the regulatory environment. A low percentage of health professionals recommended vaping products. This was particularly evident in Australia, which has the most restrictive regulatory environment of the four countries studied.

How and Why Consumers View "Little Cigars" as Legally-Defined Cigarettes.

OBJECTIVE: To test if consumers perceive filtered "little cigars" as legally-defined cigarettes and identify features they associate with cigarettes but not little cigars and vice versa. METHODS: 1,030 adults (mean age 31.1 years, 34% male, 25% non-white) were randomized in a 2×2 between-subjects experiment to view images of filtered "little cigars" that varied by package labeling (cigars: yes/no) and the product displayed in front of the packaging (filtered "little cigar" or cigarette). Measures assessed participants' perceptions that the product shown can be used as a substitute for cigarettes and features perceived to be associated with cigarettes vs. little cigars. RESULTS: Participants perceived filtered "little cigars" as substitutes for cigarettes, perceived certain features to be more like little cigars (e.g., no filter/tip, wrapped in tobacco leaf) and others to be more like cigarettes (e.g., filtered, could be inhaled deeply). In analysis of covariance assessing experimental condition effects, participants viewing images of cigarettes had stronger perceptions that filtered "little cigars" could be used as cigarette substitutes and had cigarette characteristics, but the effect was small. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence that filtered "little cigars" are perceived by consumers as cigarettes under current laws and identifies features distinguishing little cigars from cigarettes.

The US Cigarette Industry: An Economic and Marketing Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Tobacco company conduct has been a central concern in tobacco control. Nevertheless, the public health community has not taken full advantage of the large economics and marketing literature on market competition in the cigarette industry. METHODS: We conducted an unstructured narrative review of the economics and marketing literature using an antitrust framework that considers: 1) market; definition, 2) market concentration; 3) entry barriers; and 4) firm conduct. RESULTS: Since the 1960s, U.S. cigarette market concentration has increased primarily due to mergers and growth in the Marlboro brand. Entry barriers have included brand proliferation, slotting allowance contracts with retailers and government regulation. While cigarette sales have declined, established firms have used coordinated price increases, predatory pricing and price discrimination to sustain their market power and profits. CONCLUSIONS: Although the major cigarette firms have exercised market power to increase prices and profits, the market could be radically changing, with consumers more likely to use several different types of tobacco products rather than just smoking a single cigarette brand. Better understanding of the interaction between market structure and government regulation can help develop effective policies in this changing tobacco product market.