13.1 Why increasing tobacco prices matters

With the conflicting forces of addiction and desire to stop smoking, tobacco does not fit neatly into a simple economic model of supply and demand.^13,14 Nevertheless, consistent relationships between price and demand have been found for tobacco products in the literature over many decades.^1,2,15-18 The tobacco industry is also highly aware of the effects of price on tobacco consumption, and has used this knowledge to develop strategies to undermine the impact of price increases¹⁹ and to raise prices to levels that grow profits without drastically reducing consumption, offsetting losses due to declines in volumes of sales.²⁰

It is important to note that the price exerts the greatest effect on consumption when the price changes.² That effect depends not only on raising the nominal price of tobacco products but also decreasing their affordability. When tobacco prices increase faster than other goods or income, tobacco becomes less affordable. Price increases that do not reduce affordability (i.e. because they are less than growth in income) will have little impact on tobacco use. This is discussed further in Sections 13.2 and 13.5.

13.1.1.1 Theories of demand

Smoking is characterised by addiction, social cues, and habitual behaviours. Because many people who smoke are highly dependent on tobacco-delivered nicotine and persist in smoking despite recognising that tobacco products are dangerous, many early economists theorised that tobacco use was an irrational behaviour and not suitable for conventional economic analysis.^13,21 Other economists simply ignored the addictive nature of tobacco products. Later studies explicitly addressed the addictive nature of cigarette smoking, and incorporated characteristics such as time-inconsistent preferences, imperfect information, and failures of self-control among people who smoke. Chaloupka and Warner³ noted the major economic models of addiction underlying such research can be divided into three groups:

• Imperfectly rational models of addictive behaviour: These models assume that the rational, far-sighted part of a person wants good health and a long life but that their efforts to quit are repeatedly undone by the ‘wayward’ part of their personality that quite simply ‘adores’ smoking. Proponents of imperfectly rational addiction models hypothesise that consumption will fall sharply in response to price increases, but will then drift back again with time.
• Models of myopic addictive behaviour: Assumes that people who are addicted to smoking are short-sighted. Myopic addiction theorists predict that factors such as price and income will affect uptake of smoking but that once addicted patterns of consumption are well established, individuals tend to ignore or discount future costs (both monetary and health related). They hypothesise that while decreases in price will increase consumption and increases in price will reduce consumption, the effect of price increases will be much smaller than the effect of any price decreases.
• Models of rational addictive behaviour: These models reject the proposition that people who smoke behave myopically. It asserts that even addicted individuals do take into account future costs. This perspective assumes that those who are addicted make a rational choice, weighing up the pleasure of current smoking and the unpleasantness of withdrawal that comes with quitting on the one hand and the cost of current and continued smoking and the long-term health effects on the other. Different people will make different decisions depending on how much they value good health, how unpleasant they believe it will be to quit, and how much financial pressure they are under. Individuals also differ in the extent to which they prefer short-term over long-term benefits. Nevertheless, the choice an individual makes will take all relevant factors into account and be a rational one.

Proponents of the rational addiction model such as Becker and Murphy²² have demonstrated that current consumption of an addictive good tends to be inversely related not only to the current price of the good but also to the past and predicted future prices.^23,24 The model also suggests that more-educated and older people will be responsive to both new information and to price increases, and that less-educated and younger people will be much less responsive to information about long-term effects and relatively more responsive to immediate changes in price.

The rational addiction model was popular among many theorists and researchers over the late 1980s and the 1990s, but has been criticised on several grounds. First, it implies that individuals have good foresight: a very accurate picture of what the future is going to be like. This is especially pertinent for tobacco use, given many begin smoking as teenagers.² Some people give little thought to the future, and those that do largely cannot appreciate the nature and extent of health risks and may not be able to accurately envisage what their life would be like if they became very ill or disabled due to smoking. Second, the model would predict that individuals rarely regret past decisions about consumption, a theory not borne out in interviews with people who currently smoke, almost all of whom regret ever having started smoking.¹⁰ Third, critics argue that it could be that people who smoke do not actually choose future consumption. Rather, by continuing to smoke they are choosing only current consumption: future consumption happens to them rather than being chosen by them.

13.1.1.2 Price elasticity of demand

Price elasticity of demand refers to the extent to which use of a product falls or rises after increases or decreases in its price, if all other factors are held constant.²⁵ Price elasticity rates quantify the relationship between price and consumption: the percentage change in demand divided by the percentage change in price. Price elasticity is effectively always negative, typically described as how much demand reduces following a price increase. The reduction in demand can take the form of reduced consumption among consumers, or in reduced participation in the market for the good. In the case of tobacco use, reduced participation would result in a decline in smoking prevalence.¹⁷ Elastic demand means that consumption changes by the same or greater magnitude than the change in price. Inelastic demand means that consumption changes by a lower magnitude than the change in price, but that there is still a change. The impact of different rates of price elasticity is demonstrated in Table 13.1.1.

Price elasticity of demand is sometimes referred to as own-price elasticity. Cross-price elasticity refers to the predictable change in consumption of a given commodity when the price of another changes: change in price for one product encourages (or discourages) consumption of another product. Factors that affect elasticity include whether the item is discretionary, the starting price of the good, the income of consumers, and the availability of substitute items.²⁵

13.1.2 Price elasticity of demand for tobacco products

Why people reduce smoking in response to increases in the price of tobacco products has been a matter of some conjecture—see Section 13.1.1.1. However, there is no doubt that they do. The extent to which demand for tobacco products responds to changes in price is an empirical question, the answer to which can be ascertained by measuring trends in consumption as prices and other relevant factors change.

A 2011 review conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that studies on the impact of price increases on aggregate demand find average price elasticity rates of about −0.4 in high-income countries, with most estimates from the US and UK falling into a relatively narrow range between −0.2 and −0.6.²⁶ Numerous other major reviews and meta-analyses have similarly found an average elasticity for tobacco products of −0.4 for adults in high income countries^2,15-18

Studies in 2015 and 2023 have shown that these average price elasticity estimates remain accurate in jurisdictions with high taxes and low smoking prevalence.^27,28 An examination cigarette sales data from 98 countries between 2008 and 2022 found overall price elasticity to be −0.44, with notable differences by World Health Organization region.²⁹ Price elasticity was−0.89 for the Americas, −0.51 for the Western Pacific, −0.49 Europe, and −0.30 for the Eastern Mediterranean, with no significant elasticity for the Africa or South-East Asia regions. A 2024 synthesis of reviews found an average price elasticity of demand for tobacco products, including cigars and hand-rolled cigarettes, of −0.54.³⁰

While demand for tobacco products is not as elastic as demand for many other consumer products³¹ research has consistently demonstrated that increases in the price of tobacco products are followed by moderate falls in both the percentage of the population smoking and the amount or number of tobacco products those who continue to smoke.^15,32 The percentage of people smoking declines because price increases discourage non-users from starting, encourage current users to quit and, also very importantly, discourage people who have quit from starting smoking again.³² While tobacco price increases appear to have only limited effects on experimentation with tobacco use, they have major effects on reducing transition from experimentation to regular use, and prompting cessation.³³ The International Agency for Research on Cancer³² concluded that approximately half of the effect of price increases on tobacco use is attributable to declines in prevalence (‘participation in the tobacco market’¹⁷) and the other half due to reduced consumption. For example, a 10% increase in price would lead to a 4% decline in tobacco use. There would be an approximately 2% reduction in population consumption resulting from a reduction in the proportion of people who smoke, combined with an approximately 2% reduction in population consumption resulting from a reduction in quantities of tobacco products used by those people who continue to smoke.

Studies analysing changes in prevalence of smoking after tax increases provide some information in Australia on the price elasticity of prevalence (participation in the population of people smoke smoke)^34,35 However these are limited by lack of reliable information on the prices of products and the volumes of sales of individual products³⁶ (see also Sections 2.0 and 13.3). It has therefore been impossible to determine any meaningful estimate of recent price elasticity of tobacco consumption for the total Australian population.

The effects of price are not uniform across all people.^13,30 Particular groups of people are more price sensitive, largely due to having less disposable income, and may differ in terms of level of addiction and the degree to which they are impacted by social factors such as the influence of peer norms. The follow sections describe population groups that have been shown to have higher price elasticities than the general adult population of high-income countries. There is considerable heterogeneity of these groups in terms of population characteristics such as income and age distribution, as well as differences in how they are defined in various studies.³⁷ Price elasticity figures for these groups are therefore often expressed as a range estimates rather than an average.

13.1.2.1 Price elasticity among young people

There is strong evidence that young people (teens and young adults) are more strongly affected than adults by increases in the prices of tobacco products.^2,38,39 Since young adults tend to smoke more occasionally than older adults, it is theoretically possible that they may be less influenced by price changes. However, teenage and younger adults generally earn lower wages and are less dependent on tobacco, both of which would tend to make them more price sensitive.⁴⁰

Early cigarette demand studies by Lewit and colleagues using individual-level data^41,42 found a strong inverse relationship between price sensitivity and age, with younger people reducing consumption much more than adults in response to the same price increases. This finding was thrown into doubt by an influential Rand study by Wasserman and colleagues in 1991.⁴³ Later studies however^44-47 supported earlier conclusions of Lewit and colleagues that younger people who smoke tend to be more price sensitive.

It has been estimated that young people are 2 to 3 times more price sensitive than older people who smoke¹⁷ although estimates vary greatly across studies and age groups. In the US Surgeon General’s review of the literature published in 1994,⁴⁸ estimates of elasticity of youth cigarette demand ranged from −0.9 to −1.5 (about three times the level of elasticity of adult cigarette demand). Other early price elasticity estimates for teens were as high as −1.20 for prevalence and −0.25 for consumption, meaning a 10% increase in price would reduce teen smoking prevalence by 12% and consumption by 2.5%.⁴⁹ Following a large increase in federal excise duty in the United States in 2009 that resulted in a 22% increase in prices, the prevalence of smoking at least monthly among Year 8, 10 and 12 students was estimated to have dropped between 9.7% and 13.3% (depending on model specifications), suggesting price elasticity of participation of about −0.5% for teenagers.⁵⁰ Other studies estimated total price elasticity of demand among young adults aged 20−25 years to be −0.89, compared to −0.45 for those aged 26−35 years and −0.47 for 36−74-year-olds.⁴¹ A major review of literature on the effect of prices on youth smoking conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 concluded that price elasticity of demand for teenagers was somewhere between −0.5 and −1.2%.⁵¹

While elasticity estimates vary across studies, as do the specific age groups considered, in general there is a consistent pattern that price elasticity declines with age. This decline is particularly pronounced among those in their 20s, usually plateauing in middle-age and older adulthood.⁵¹ Across all the studies published up until 2001, Gallet and List¹⁶ found a gradient of price responsiveness by age, with an average price elasticity of −1.43 for teenagers, −0.76 for young adults, and −0.32 for adults. A 2012 review for high-income countries (that would be taking into account patterns of later uptake of smoking among young people) suggested estimates of −0.74 for young people and −0.37 for adults.¹⁸

Several factors contribute to the greater price sensitivity of young people.^13,51 They have less disposable income and therefore price increases represent a much larger proportion of their money available for spending on tobacco. Young people who smoke also tend to be less addicted, or at least consume less tobacco, and are therefore more readily able to change their smoking behaviour. It is also likely that young people are more susceptible to the influence of peers and family, where the social impact of reduced peer and parental smoking in response to a tax increase would further discourage young people from taking up smoking.⁵¹ Taken together, these factors suggest that the long-term population-level effects of raising the prices of tobacco are larger for young people than adults in general.^51-53

13.1.2.2 Price elasticity among lower socioeconomic populations

Evidence on the effects of income on price sensitivity come from two types of studies: those examining low- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries and those examining low-income groups within a country compared to higher-income members of the same population. While not every study has reached the same conclusion—different levels of access to cheaper tobacco products over time and in different countries may explain some of the inconsistent findings²⁶—the majority of studies in high-income countries have found greater price sensitivity among those on lower incomes.^26,54

People who smoke in less developed nations tend to be more sensitive to price, with estimates of price sensitivity generally around double that in more affluent countries.⁵⁵ In 1999, a World Bank review concluded that price elasticity in developing countries was −0.8, compared to −0.4 in developed countries.^56,57 Blecher and Walbeek conclude, however, that when changes in affordability rather than changes in price are taken into account, the level of sensitivity in developing countries may be similar to that observed in developed countries.⁵⁸ A 2016 review of the evidence from low- and middle-income countries showed the price elasticity estimates ranged from −0.2 to −0.8, ‘clustering around −0.5’.² As with higher-income countries, particular population groups such as youth tend to show higher price elasticity rates, for example ranging −0.44 to −1.13 for tobacco use, and −1.04 to −3.66 for smoking initiation, among youth in sub-Saharan Africa.⁵⁹

There is also a general consensus that people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are more price sensitive than less disadvantaged people within the same country.^17,26,54 However, the degree to which elasticity estimates differ across socioeconomic status (SES) groups appears to differ greatly between countries, so that no single estimates are available from meta-analytic studies.³⁷ Disadvantage has been defined in numerous ways across these studies, including by individual or household income, area-level measures of disadvantage, education level, or a combination of factors, which may may help to explain the varying estimates of elasticity across different countries and studies.

Early studies in the UK showed low-income groups were more responsive to increases in cigarette prices in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s.^60-62 A large 2025 study in the US found a gradient of price elasticity of smoking participation, from -0.32 for the poorest group, −0.27 for low income, −0.24 for middle income, and no significant elasticity rate for the highest income group. Price elasticity for smoking intensity was −0.33 for middle income and −0.42 for high income groups, but not significant for lower income groups. Total price elasticity did not follow a gradient by income group.⁶³ One study from Australia in 2009, noted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer for its particularly strong methodology, found that the lowest income group examined showed price elasticity for smoking prevalence (participation) of −0.32, compared to −0.04 for middle-income and −0.02 for the highest income group.³⁴ A later study of smoking prevalence in Australia by some of the same authors over a period of large annual tax increases once again found substantially higher short-run drops in smoking among low-SES people following tax increases. The reduction in prevalence among the lower socioeconomic status (SES) group was four times higher than that of the mid-to-high SES group after a 25% increase in tobacco tax in late April 2010 and three times higher than that of the mid-to-high SES group after a 12.5% tax increase in December 2013.³⁵

As with young people, low-SES people who smoke are more substantially impacted by price increases because a higher proportion of their income is consumed by the price increase, meaning the opportunity cost of continuing to smoke at the same rate is greater than for higher-SES people.²⁶

13.1.2.3 Price elasticity and other population groups

Few studies have examined the relationship between price and consumption in population groups beyond socioeconomic disadvantage and age. Bader and colleagues in 2011⁶⁴ noted the lack of evidence for people particularly at risk of the harms of smoking, including people who smoked heavily or for a long period of time, people with multiple diagnoses, and indigenous people. Similarly, few studies have examined price elasticity across ethnic groups, which may be correlated with socioeconomic disadvantage. A 1997 study found in the US, smoking rates of young black men were found to be significantly more responsive to changes in price than are smoking rates among young white men.^65,66

Studies have differed as to findings about the relative price sensitivity of women compared with that of men. Townsend and colleagues⁶¹ found that women in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Britain were more sensitive than men to increases in tobacco prices. Chaloupka and Pacula,⁶⁷ however, found that the prevalence elasticity for young American men was almost twice as large as that for young women. (Prevalence elasticity is the ratio by which prevalence (the proportion of people who smoke at all) rather than consumption (the average amount which people smoke) reduces in response to an increase in price.) Across all the studies published until 2001, Gallet and List¹⁶ found an average price sensitivity of −0.50 for men, and −0.34 for women. Subsequent studies have generally failed to find gender differences in price sensitivity.¹ It is likely that the relationship between price sensitivity and gender is highly variable across countries, due economic and cultural factors, and differences in smoking participation.^68,69

13.1.2.4 Price elasticity for tobacco and nicotine products other than cigarettes

Most estimates of price elasticity of demand for tobacco have only examined cigarettes. One large review of studies of elasticity rates of various tobacco products from 15 countries found average elasticity varied by product type: −0.83 for cigars, −0.64 for roll-your-own tobacco, −0.57 for bidis and −0.21 for smokeless tobacco.⁷⁰

When the price of one type of tobacco products increases disproportionately to another type of product, this can create an incentive for people who smoke to substitute rather than reduce their consumption: this is referred to as cross-price elasticity. Estimates of cross-price elasticity may vary substantially by countries, based on the tax structure, availability and popularity of different tobacco products. Evidence of pricing differences between manufactured cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco, and the strategic manipulation of these price differences by the tobacco industry, is provided in Section 13.4.5.

Positive cross-price elasticity has been demonstrated between cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products (for example, roll-your-own tobacco, cigarillos, and pipe tobacco), where an increase in the price of cigarettes leads to substitution (increase in demand) with these alternative products. Research in the US,⁷¹ Canada,⁷² and Finland⁷³ has concluded that an increase in the price of manufactured cigarettes can lead to an increase in sales of loose tobacco and other tobacco products. Increases in the price of those products without simultaneous increases in the price of cigarettes are also followed by drops in consumption.⁷³ In Australia, use of roll-your-own tobacco increased in the years following substantial increases in tax levels on all tobacco products (see Section 1.12 and Section 13.6). Increases in use of roll-your-own have been even more pronounced in countries where taxes on loose tobacco have not kept pace with taxes on cigarettes.⁷⁴

Evidence of price elasticity for smokeless tobacco products, nicotine replacement therapy and vaping products is limited. A large US study examined own-price and cross-price elasticity for tobacco and nicotine products, finding variable estimates by store type and market.⁷⁵ In general, combustible tobacco products showed higher elasticities than smokeless tobacco, and disposable e-cigarettes were found to be slightly more elastic than reusable e-cigarettes (−1.6 and −1.4, respectively). Estimates of elasticity for nicotine replacement therapies ranged from −1.1 to −1.4. A 2022 study in the US found the price elasticity of e-cigarettes was −2.2, compared to −0.4 for combustible cigarettes.⁷⁶ Evidence of positive cross-price elasticity between e-cigarettes and cigarettes was also found. However, other studies have found conflicting relationships between e-cigarette taxes and tobacco consumption,^77,78 possibly reflecting the heterogeneity of tax levels of populations studied.

13.1.2.5 Approaches to and limitations of assessing price elasticity

Price elasticity can be calculated in many different ways, and this sub-section also discusses the advantages and problems associated with these approaches. Many studies examining the price elasticity of demand have used aggregate data—that is, data at a country or state level on the total amount of tobacco purchased or taxed for the entire population. Some of these studies have analysed changes in taxable or reported sales of all tobacco products, and some have looked at cigarettes alone. Some have measured the weight of product sold, others the number of units. Some studies have compared consumption in the same jurisdiction with different prices over time (time-series analyses). Others have compared consumption in jurisdictions with different prices at the same points in time (cross-sectional studies).

Other studies make use of surveys conducted regularly among school students, adults or households. These might be surveys might ask about smoking habits or they might ask about spending on a whole range of household items, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Household Expenditure Survey, which randomly selects a large number of households to complete questionnaires about all their purchases and amounts spent. A small number of studies have looked at consumption as reported by a panel of people who smoke, interviewed before and after tax increases over time about their consumption and various factors which might affect it. Behavioural economists have also examined the response of individuals not to real-life price increases, but rather to price increases simulated in choice experiments, particularly for emerging products such as e-cigarettes, or compare different types of products.

Researchers have also used a variety of statistical models for specifying demand and for estimating elasticity. In their comprehensive review, Gallet and List¹⁶ found that resulting estimates of price elasticity from these different approaches were generally fairly similar and did not differ systematically depending on the design or method of analysis used. Studies that measured responses to price changes in the short term tended to report lower elasticity than studies that reported long-run estimates (−0.40 compared with −0.44). Gallet and List¹⁶ also noted that subsequent studies in high-quality journals also tended to report slightly lower estimates, reflecting increasing sophistication in modelling and the greater number of factors also affecting consumption being taken into account.

There is no doubt that people who smoke are responsive to changes in the price of tobacco products. However there is no single definitive way of quantifying price sensitivity. Studies that use individual-level data and those that use aggregate data are both subject to various limitations. The reliability of individual-level data is very much dependent on adequate sampling, recall, and honesty by respondents about factors such as purchase of illicit tobacco. Under-reporting of numbers of cigarettes (or amount of other tobacco products) smoked is also a significant problem.^79,80 Using aggregate data on taxable product sales avoids these problems and ensures that researchers are looking at the impact of price changes on the entire market; however, studies that use such data are subject to a number of different limitations.

First, without asking a representative sample of consumers about the prices of the products they are able to buy over time, it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly what the average or typical price is (see Section 13.3). Manufacturers use a variety of methods to cushion consumers from the effect of increases in taxes. It is by no means straightforward to assess the extent of price increases across a market where retailers engage in various degrees of discounting, ‘specialling’ and bulk-selling and where illicit or tax-free tobacco products may also be available.

Specifying changing quantities of tobacco products consumed is similarly not straightforward. Studies that measure the weight of product may be undermined by the practice of some tobacco companies gradually reducing the taxable weight of cigarettes (without corresponding decreases in delivery of harm).⁸¹ Studies that analyse changes in the number of products generally do not take into account any consumer shift to possibly more harmful tobacco products⁸² or changes in the amount of tobacco used in roll-your-own cigarettes.

Finally, studies often do not adequately take into account all the less-easily-measured factors that affect tobacco consumption, such as negative (unpaid) publicity about tobacco in the media and anti-smoking sentiment in the community. Often changes in such factors coincide with or precede tax increases, and the effects of such factors may multiply rather than simply add to the effect of price increases. These factors are discussed comprehensively in Chaloupka and Warner 2000.³

13.1.3 Effects of price increases on tobacco use

Data from surveys of individuals across a population allow researchers to examine in more detail the impact of price increases on both smoking participation (that is, whether people smoke at all) and smoking intensity (that is, how much people smoke). Different studies have drawn differing conclusions about the relative contribution of declines in prevalence and declines in smoking intensity.³² Evidence from Australia on the impact of specific tobacco excise increases, and the impact of tax increases compared to other policies, on tobacco use is presented in Section 13.8.

Overall, research among adults^1,83 indicates that:

• Roughly half of the impact of price increases on tobacco consumption results from reductions in prevalence, and roughly half results from people who continue to smoke smoking less frequently.
• Higher prices reduce prevalence by increasing interest in quitting, quit attempts and successful cessation.
• Higher prices can reduce consumption among people who continue to smoke by reducing the number of cigarettes consumed by people who smoke regularly.
• Higher prices can reduce consumption by increasing the likelihood that people will smoke less frequently.

Unlike for adults where prices affect both participation and intensity, early researchers assumed that most of the effects of price on young people smoking were on participation, mostly by reducing smoking initiation. Studies examining the relative effects of price on participation and smoking intensity among youth have reached varying conclusions,^51,84 but those that have used the longest panels of data^46,47 have generally been able to detect some effect on both initiation and quitting.^3,83 The review of the literature conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer⁸⁵ concluded the following:

• Cigarette prices influence different stages of uptake of cigarette use, with a relatively larger impact at later stages.
  • Most but not all longitudinal studies from high-income countries find that smoking initiation is inversely related to price.
  • As cigarette prices increases, smoking cessation among young people increases.
• Price has a direct effect on young people, and also an indirect effect through both peer and family influence.

As well as reductions in tobacco use, other studies have examined the relationship between tobacco prices and population-level health impacts, such has reductions in mortality, non-communicable disease burden, and infant mortality.^13,86-90 

13.1.4 Concluding note

Despite nuances in economic theories and methodological limitations, there is no doubt that price exerts a profound impact on tobacco consumption.³² Falls in consumption following large price increases are consistently much more rapid and more significant than falls following implementation of most other tobacco-control policies. It is widely accepted that increasing tobacco prices as part of a comprehensive tobacco control program is the most effective way for governments to reduce smoking prevalence and improve population health.^2,15,91-95

i About 33% reported initially that they do not intend to quit, however, when these people were then asked what would motivate them to quit, only 28.5% of those with no intention to quit stated that nothing would (and 24.2% stated an increase in cost would motivate them).

Related reading

References

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Chapter 5. Tax, price and adult tobacco use, in Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Lyon, France: IARC; 2011.  Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Handbooks-Of-Cancer-Prevention/Effectiveness-Of-Tax-And-Price-Policies-For-Tobacco-Control-2011.

2. US National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization, The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 21. NIH Publication No. 16-CA-8029A. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; and Geneva, CH: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/21/docs/m21_complete.pdf.

3. Chaloupka FJ and Warner KE. The economics of smoking, in The handbook of health economics.  Newhouse J and Cuyler A, Editors. New York: Elsevier Science; 2000. p 1539-627 Available from: http://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/eeeheachp/1-29.htm.

4. Gruber J. Do cigarette taxes make smokers happier?, Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2002. Available from: www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/labor/lap02/Gruber-020913.pdf.

5. Gruber J and Botond K. Tax incidence when individuals are time-inconsistent: the case of cigarette excise taxes. Journal of Public Economics, 2004; 88(9–10):1959–87. Available from: https://isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/48085.pdf

6. Cherukupalli R. A behavioral economics perspective on tobacco taxation. American Journal of Public Health, 2010; 100(4):609–15. Available from: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/100/4/609?view=long&pmid=20220113

7. Popova L and Halpern-Felsher BL. A Longitudinal Study of Adolescents' Optimistic Bias about Risks and Benefits of Cigarette Smoking. Am J Health Behav, 2016; 40(3):341-51.

8. Hu T, Gall SL, Widome R, Bazzano LA, Burns TL, et al. Childhood/Adolescent Smoking and Adult Smoking and Cessation: The International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) Consortium. J Am Heart Assoc, 2020; 9(7):e014381.

9. DeCicca P, Kenkel D, and Lovenheim MF. The Economics of Tobacco Regulation: A Comprehensive Review. J Econ Lit, 2022; 60(3):883-970.

10. Fong G, Hammond D, Laux F, Zanna M, Cummings K, et al. The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2004; 6(suppl. 3):S341–51. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15799597/

11. Koh I, Yang S, and Mitsopoulos E. Profiling Australian adults who smoke and/or vape. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 2025.

12. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Data tables: National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022–2023 – 2. Tobacco smoking. Canberra: AIHW, 2024. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/national-drug-strategy-household-survey/data.

13. Fuchs A, Márquez PV, Dutta S, and Icaza FG. Is tobacco taxation regressive? Policy note. Washington DC: Worl Bank Group, 2019. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/893811554737147697/Is-Tobacco-Taxation-Regressive-Evidence-on-Public-Health-Domestic-Resource-Mobilization-and-Equity-Improvements.

14. Chaloupka FJ, Jha P, de Beyer J, and Heller P. The Economics of Tobacco Control. Briefing Notes in Economics, 2005; (63 ). Available from: http://www.richmond.ac.uk/bne/63_Frank_Chaloupka.pdf

15. The World Bank. Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington: World Bank, 1999. Available from: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/914041468176678949/curbing-the-epidemic-governments-and-the-economics-of-tobacco-control.

16. Gallet C and List J. Cigarette demand: a meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Economics, 2003; 12(10):821–35. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14508867/

17. Chaloupka FJ, Yurekli A, and Fong GT. Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tob Control, 2012; 21(2):172-80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345242

18. US Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF), Tobacco use: interventions to increase the unit price for tobacco products. Atlanta, GA: Department of Human Services, USA.gov; 2012. Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/tobacco-use-interventions-increase-unit-price-tobacco.

19. Chaloupka FJ, Cummings KM, Morley CP, and Horan JK. Tax, price and cigarette smoking: evidence from the tobacco documents and implications for tobacco company marketing strategies. Tobacco Control, 2002; 11(suppl.1):i62-72. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/suppl_1/i62

20. The Economist. The counterintuitive economics of smoking. The Economist, 2025. Last update: 30/10/2025; Viewed Available from: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/10/26/the-counterintuitive-economics-of-smoking.

21. Elster J, Ulysses and the Sirens: studies in rationality and irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.

22. Becker G and Murphy K. A theory of rational addiction. The Journal of Political Economy, 1988; 96(4):675–700. Available from: http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/becker02.htm

23. Becker G, Grossman M, and Murphy K. Rational addiction and the effect of price on consumption. The American Economic Review, 1991; 82(2):237–41. Available from: http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/becker1.htm

24. Becker G, Grossman M, and Murphy K. An empirical analysis of cigarette addiction. The American Economic Review, 1994; 84(3):396–418. Available from: www.soc.washington.edu/users/matsueda/Becker%20AER.pdf

25. Gallo A. A refresher on price elasticity. Harvard Business Review, 2015; 8. Available from: https://hbr.org/2015/08/a-refresher-on-price-elasticity

26. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Chapter 7. Tax, price and tobacco use among the poor, in Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Lyon, France: IARC; 2011.  Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Handbooks-Of-Cancer-Prevention/Effectiveness-Of-Tax-And-Price-Policies-For-Tobacco-Control-2011.

27. Amato MS, Boyle RG, and Brock B. Higher price, fewer packs: evaluating a tobacco tax increase with cigarette sales data. Am J Public Health, 2015; 105(3):e5-8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25602874

28. Kohler A, Vinci L, and Mattli R. Cross-country and panel data estimates of the price elasticity of demand for cigarettes in Europe. BMJ Open, 2023; 13(6):e069970. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37328180

29. Ali FRM, DeLong P, Guerrero-Lopez CM, Rodriguez-Iglesias G, and Drope J. Global cigarette market: trends in sales, pricing and estimates of price elasticity across WHO regions (2008-2022). Tob Control, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40764027

30. Burton R, Sharpe C, Bhuptani S, Jecks M, Henn C, et al. The relationship between the price and demand of alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, sugar-sweetened beverages, and gambling: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. BMC Public Health, 2024; 24(1):1286. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38730332

31. Tennant RB, The American cigarette industry: a study in economic analysis and public policy. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press; 1950.

32. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Chapter 4. Tax, price and aggregate demand for tobacco products, in Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Lyon, France: IARC; 2011.  Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/list/handbooks/.

33. US National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization. Chapter 4: The Impact of Tax and Price on the Demand for Tobacco Products, in National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 21. The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. Section 3—Price Determinants of Demand.  NIH Publication, Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; and Geneva, CH: World Health Organization:  2016.  Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/21/docs/m21_4.pdf.

34. Siahpush M, Wakefield M, Spittal M, Durkin S, and Scollo M. Taxation reduces social disparities in adult smoking prevalence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2009; 36(4):285–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19201146?ordinalpos=19&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVBrief

35. Wilkinson AL, Scollo MM, Wakefield MA, Spittal MJ, Chaloupka FJ, et al. Smoking prevalence following tobacco tax increases in Australia between 2001 and 2017: an interrupted time-series analysis. Lancet Public Health, 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31759897

36. Scollo M. 2.6 Comparisons of quality and results using various estimates of tobacco consumption in Australia, in Tobacco in Australia: Facts & issues.  Greenhalgh E, Scollo M, and Winstanley M, Editors. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2020.  Available from: https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-2-consumption/2-6-comparisons-of-quality-and-results-using-vario.

37. Guindon GE, Abbas U, Trivedi R, Garasia S, Johnson S, et al. Socioeconomic differences in the impact of prices and taxes on tobacco use in low- and middle-income countries-A systematic review. PLOS Glob Public Health, 2023; 3(9):e0002342. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37756265

38. Chaloupka FJ and Tauras JA. The power of tax and price. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(6):391-2. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/6/391.short

39. Pesko MF, Tauras J, Huang J, and Chaloupka FJ. The influence of geography and measurement in estimating cigarette price responsiveness. Working Paper 22296, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22296.

40. Ding A. Youth are more sensitive to price changes in cigarettes than adults. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 2003; 76(3):115–24. Available from: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/yjbm/jobm/2003/00000076/00000003/art00004

41. Lewit EM and Coate D. The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking. Journal of Health Economics, 1982; 1(2):121–45. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8K-45BC6NV-B&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1982&_rdoc=2&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235873%231982%23999989997%23289738%23FLP%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5873&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=7&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f61b82f985ad0bd335c236dc281b4ab6

42. Lewit EM, Coate D, and Grossman M. The effects of government regulation on teenage smoking. The Journal of Law & Economics, 1981; 24(3):545–69. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/pss/725277

43. Wasserman J, Manning W, Newhouse J, and Winkler J. The effects of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking. Journal of Health Economics, 1991; 101(1):43-64. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8K-458XP03-4&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1991&_rdoc=4&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235873%231991%23999899998%23288487%23FLP%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5873&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=8&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1fe195cce4937f547e0c24ec77f5e3fb

44. Lewit E, Hyland A, Kerrebrock N, and Cummings K. Price, public policy, and smoking in young people. Tobacco Control, 1997; 6(suppl. 2):S17–24. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/citation/6/suppl_2/S17

45. Chaloupka FJ and Grossman M. Price, Tobacco Control Policies and Youth Smoking. Working Paper no. 5740.Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1996. Available from: http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/.

46. Evans WN and Huang LX, Cigarette taxes and teen smoking: new evidence from panels of repeated cross-sections. Department of Economics Working Paper: University of Maryland; 1998.

47. Tauras J and Chaloupka F. Price, clean indoor air laws, and cigarette smoking: evidence from longitudinal data for young adults. NBER Working paper no. 6937.Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1999. Available from: http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/.

48. US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among young people. A report of the Surgeon General, 1994. Atlanta, Georgia: Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4304.pdf.

49. Chaloupka FJ. Effect of tobacco taxation, in Preventing tobacco use among young people: a report of the US Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1994.  Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/1994/index.htm.

50. Huang J and Chaloupka FJ. The impact of the 2009 federal tobacco excise tax increase on youth tobacco use. NBER working paper series, Working Paper 18026.Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18026.pdf.

51. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Chapter 6. Tax, price and tobacco use among young people, in Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Lyon, France: IARC; 2011.  Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/list/handbooks/.

52. Chaloupka FJ, Kostova D, and Shang C. Cigarette excise tax structure and cigarette prices: evidence from the global adult tobacco survey and the U.S. National Adult Tobacco Survey. Nicotine Tob Res, 2014; 16 Suppl 1:S3-9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23935181

53. Gruber J and Zinman J. Youth smoking in the US: evidence and implications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2001. Available from: econ- www.mit.edu/files/70.

54. Thomas S, Fayter D, Misso K, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, et al. Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review. Tobacco Control, 2008; 17(4):230–7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/230

55. Lance P, Akin J, Dow W, and Loh C. Is cigarette smoking in poorer nations highly sensitive to price? Evidence from Russia and China. Journal of Health Economics, 2004; 23(1):173–89. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15154693

56. Jha P. Avoidable global cancer deaths and total deaths from smoking. Nature Reviews. Cancer, 2009; 9(9):655–64. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n9/full/nrc2703.html

57. Jha P and Chaloupka F, eds. Tobacco Control in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press on behalf of The Human Development Network, the World Bank, and The Economics Advisory Service, World Health Organization;2000.

58. Blecher EH and van Walbeek CP. An international analysis of cigarette affordability. Tobacco Control, 2004; 13(4):339-46. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/339

59. Asare S, Stoklosa M, Drope J, and Larsen A. Effects of Prices on Youth Cigarette Smoking and Tobacco Use Initiation in Ghana and Nigeria. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2019; 16(17). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31461885

60. Townsend JL. Cigarette tax, economic welfare and social class patterns of smoking. Applied Economics, 1987; 19:355–65. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036848700000007

61. Townsend JL, Roderick P, and Cooper J. Cigarette smoking by socioeconomic group, sex, and age: effects of price, income, and health publicity. British Medical Journal, 1994; 309(6959):923–6. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/309/6959/923

62. Townsend J. Price and consumption of tobacco. British Medical Bulletin, 1996; 52(1):132–42. Available from: http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/1/132

63. Keeler C, Yao T, Wang Y, Max W, and Sung HY. Price-Responsiveness of Cigarette Smoking Behaviors across Income Groups in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40874571

64. Bader P, Boisclair D, and Ferrence R. Effects of tobacco taxation and pricing on smoking behavior in high risk populations: a knowledge synthesis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2011; 8:4118–39. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22163198

65. Chaloupka FJ and Wechsler H. Price, tobacco control policies and smoking among young adults. Journal of Health Economics, 1997; 16(3):359-73. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=225791

66. Mena AC and Paraje G. Tobacco price elasticity by socioeconomic characteristics in Ecuador. PLoS One, 2024; 19(4):e0302293. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38640122

67. Chaloupka FJ and Pacula RL. Sex and race differences in young people's responsiveness to price and tobacco control policies. Tobacco Control, 1999; 8(4):373–7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/4/373

68. Cruces G, Puig J, Lunghi I, Flores Munoz M, and Paraje G. Tobacco consumption, gender and caregiving: a case study in Argentina. Tob Control, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40759491

69. Morales J and Santander S. Assessing Cigarette Reduction Tax-Effectiveness in Low Tobacco Expenditure Contexts: An Application to Bolivia. Health Econ, 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39810313

70. Jawad M, Lee JT, Glantz S, and Millett C. Price elasticity of demand of non-cigarette tobacco products: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29363611

71. Ohsfeldt R, Boyle R, and Capilouto E. Effects of tobacco excise taxes on the use of smokeless tobacco products in the USA. Health Economics, 1997; 6(5):525–32. Available from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/14681/ABSTRACT

72. Thomson N and McLeod I. The effects of economic variables upon the demand for cigarettes in Canada. Mathematical Scientist, 1976; 1:121–31.

73. Pekurinen M. The demand for tobacco products in Finland. British Journal of Addiction, 1989; 84(10):1183–92. Available from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119445417/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

74. Sukin K Tobacco smokescreen. The Nation, 2006. Available from: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/01/22/headlines/index.php?news=headlines_19718718.html

75. Huang J, Gwarnicki C, Xu X, Caraballo RS, Wada R, et al. A comprehensive examination of own- and cross-price elasticities of tobacco and nicotine replacement products in the U.S. Prev Med, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29684418

76. Cotti C, Courtemanche C, Maclean JC, Nesson E, Pesko MF, et al. The effects of e-cigarette taxes on e-cigarette prices and tobacco product sales: Evidence from retail panel data. Journal of Health Economics, 2022; 86:102676. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629622000911

77. He Y, Liber A, Driezen P, Thompson ME, Levy DT, et al. How do users compare the costs between nicotine vaping products and cigarettes? Findings from the 2016–2020 International Tobacco Control United States surveys. Addiction, 2024; 119(5):885-97. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.16425

78. Pesko MF and Warman C. Re-exploring the early relationship between teenage cigarette and e-cigarette use using price and tax changes. Health Econ, 2022; 31(1):137-53.

79. Warner K. Possible increase in the underreporting of cigarette consumption. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1978; 73(362):314-18.

80. Liber AC and Warner KE. Has Underreporting of Cigarette Consumption Changed Over Time? Estimates Derived From US National Health Surveillance Systems Between 1965 and 2015. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2017; 187(1):113-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx196

81. Chapman S. Changes in adult cigarette consumption per head in 128 countries 1986-90. Tobacco Control, 1992; 1:281-4. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/1/4/281

82. Evans WN and Farrelly MC. The compensating behaviour of smokers: taxes, tar and nicotine. Department of Economics Working Paper: University of Maryland, 1995.

83. Dennett JM. The Long-Term Impacts of Cigarette Taxes on Smoking. Am J Health Econ, 2024; 10(4):568-602. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39678172

84. DeCicca P, Kenkel D, Mathios A, Shin YJ, and Lim JY. Youth smoking, cigarette prices, and anti-smoking sentiment. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12458.

85. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Vol.14.Lyon, France: IARC, 2011. Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Handbooks-Of-Cancer-Prevention/Effectiveness-Of-Tax-And-Price-Policies-For-Tobacco-Control-2011.

86. Bannon OS, Been JV, Harper S, Laverty AA, Millett C, et al. Cigarette taxation and socioeconomic inequalities in under-5 mortality across 94 low-income and middle-income countries: a longitudinal ecological study. Lancet Public Health, 2025; 10(5):e380-e90. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40312082

87. Bhatt G and Siddiqi K. Cigarette taxation reduces inequalities in child mortality. Lancet Public Health, 2025; 10(5):e352-e3. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40312078

88. Bowser D, Canning D, and Okunogbe A. The impact of tobacco taxes on mortality in the USA, 1970–2005. Tobacco Control, 2016; 25(1):52-9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/1/52.abstract

89. Brogan C. Budget cigarettes linked to higher infant mortality rates in EU countries, in Imperial College London News2017. Available from: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_18-9-2017-12-33-24.

90. Shimul SN and Huang J. Does raising tobacco taxes reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases? A panel data analysis of 152 countries. BMJ Open, 2025; 15(7):e097447. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40659394

91. Gray N and Daube M. Guidelines for smoking control. UICC technical report series no. 52, Geneva: International Union Against Cancer, 1980.

92. World Health Organization. Tools for advancing tobacco control in the XX1st century: policy recommendations for smoking cessation and treatment of tobacco dependence. Tools for public health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2003. Available from: http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/8D25E4D3-BB81-479E-8DF5-7BAF674DB104/0/PolicyRecommendations.pdf.

93. World Health Organization Higher taxes key to battle against tobacco use, says new WHO/World Bank publication. 2000. Available from: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-53.html

94. Jamrozik K. Policy priorities for tobacco control. British Medical Journal, 2004; 328(7446):1007-9. Available from: PM:15105328

95. World Health Organization. MPOWER: A policy package to reverse the tobacco epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_english.pdf.