White Victoria M, Gilpin Elizabeth A, White Martha M, Pierce John P
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Australia.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2005 Aug;7(4):625-35. doi: 10.1080/14622200500184333.
When faced with high cigarette prices, smokers can potentially control cigarette expenditures by limiting consumption or seeking cheaper cigarettes. The present study examined both these options and whether the use of price-minimizing strategies (the second option) could counteract a further price increase without smokers having to reduce consumption. Data for 5,109 smokers who purchased manufactured cigarettes were from the 2002 cross-sectional, population-based, random-digit-dialed California Tobacco Survey. We used logistic regression to examine which smokers used consumption-limiting or price-minimizing strategies, and multiple linear regression to determine how much price-minimizing strategies reduced the average price paid per pack. Overall, 32.3% of California smokers said they limited consumption and 74.1% used at least one of the five price-minimizing strategies identified: choosing cheaper retail outlets (61.1%), using promotional offers (35.2%), choosing cheaper brands (28.7%), purchasing by the carton (27.7%), and using low-tax or nontaxed sources (6.3%). Different groups of smokers used different strategies. Except for the use of promotional offers, all price-minimizing strategies significantly reduced the price paid per pack. Carton purchasers saved 1.01 US dollars/pack, and those buying from low-tax or nontaxed sources saved 1.23 US dollars/pack. However, pack buyers were reluctant to purchase cartons, mostly because they thought they might smoke too much, or because they considered the upfront cost unaffordable. The average California smoker could potentially save 0.33-0.66 US dollars/pack or 6.00-12.00 US dollars/month by using other price-minimizing strategies. Reducing consumption by 3 cigarettes/day could save a smoker 18.00 US dollars/month. Whereas price-minimizing strategies appeared to save money, cutting consumption could save even more. Thus further substantial tax increases would likely have the desired effect.
面对高昂的香烟价格时，吸烟者可能会通过限制消费或寻找更便宜的香烟来控制香烟支出。本研究考察了这两种选择，以及使用价格最小化策略（第二种选择）是否能够在吸烟者无需减少消费的情况下抵消进一步的价格上涨。5109名购买机制香烟的吸烟者的数据来自2002年基于人群的加利福尼亚烟草横断面随机数字拨号电话调查。我们使用逻辑回归来考察哪些吸烟者采用了限制消费或价格最小化策略，并使用多元线性回归来确定价格最小化策略能使每包香烟的平均支付价格降低多少。总体而言，32.3%的加利福尼亚吸烟者表示他们限制了消费，74.1%的吸烟者至少采用了所确定的五种价格最小化策略中的一种：选择更便宜的零售店（61.1%）、利用促销优惠（35.2%）、选择更便宜的品牌（28.7%）、整箱购买（27.7%）以及使用低税或免税渠道（6.3%）。不同群体的吸烟者采用不同的策略。除了利用促销优惠外，所有价格最小化策略都显著降低了每包香烟的支付价格。整箱购买者每包节省1.01美元，从低税或免税渠道购买者每包节省1.23美元。然而，单包购买者不愿整箱购买，主要是因为他们认为自己可能吸烟量太大，或者觉得前期成本难以承受。加利福尼亚吸烟者平均使用其他价格最小化策略可能每包节省0.33 - 0.66美元或每月节省6.00 - 12.00美元。每天减少3支香烟的消费可为吸烟者每月节省18.00美元。虽然价格最小化策略似乎能省钱，但减少消费可能节省更多。因此，进一步大幅提高税收可能会产生预期效果。
