Bill Overview
Title: No Tax Subsidies for E-Cigarette and Tobacco Ads Act
Description: This bill denies a tax deduction for expenses relating to direct-to-consumer advertising of tobacco products, including electronic nicotine delivery systems.
Sponsors: Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: Global consumers of tobacco and e-cigarette products
Estimated Size: 58500000
- The bill targets advertising expenses related to tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.
- Companies advertising tobacco products will lose tax deductions, making advertising more expensive.
- This could lead to reduced advertising or higher product prices, impacting consumption.
- Consumers of tobacco and e-cigarette products may see reduced product availability or increased prices.
- Public health advocates might see a positive impact by a potential reduction in tobacco consumption.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects advertising strategies of tobacco companies, which may indirectly influence consumer behavior through reduced exposure to tobacco ads.
- The budget constraint limits direct involvement with consumers, as the impact is indirect (via advertising costs).
- Those heavily dependent on tobacco products might report a temporary decrease in wellbeing due to possible price increases or reduced availability.
- Public health advocates and individuals considering quitting smoking may experience improved wellbeing due to reduced exposure to advertisements.
- This policy is most relevant to current consumers of tobacco and e-cigarettes, and not all such consumers will feel its impact equally.
- Tobacco companies may absorb some costs to maintain market share, diluting the effect on prices to consumers.
- Awareness campaigns for quitting might gain traction in response to reduced ad visibility.
- The cost effect of reduced tax subsidies might be more pronounced in the first few years as companies adjust their advertising expenditures.
- Long-term wellbeing impacts are contingent on sustained changes in consumer behavior and quit rates, catalyzed by reduced advertising.
- The policy impacts are explored across diverse demographics such as smokers, healthcare providers, and non-smokers.
Simulated Interviews
marketing consultant (New York City, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've noticed how e-cigarette ads pop up everywhere I look. If these ads were reduced, maybe I would think twice about my purchases.
- This might mean fewer discounts or promotions from companies if they are cutting costs, which might affect my spending.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
public health advocate (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction to curb the influence of tobacco in our communities.
- I believe it will help reduce smoking rates, especially among the younger population who are easily influenced by ads.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
college student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ads make these products more appealing, but I'm trying to cut down. Less advertising might actually help me with that.
- I'm concerned that if prices go up, it might hurt my wallet, but it could be for the better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
tobacco store owner (Dallas, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could hurt my business since less advertising could mean fewer customers.
- I'm worried about how I'll be able to sustain promotions and reach new customers without these ads.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
tech entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy directly impacts me since I don't use tobacco products.
- However, as someone supporting healthier lifestyles, I see this as a positive step for public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
bartender (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fewer ads might help with quitting, but I'm worried about the potential price hike from reduced promotions.
- It's complicated because many of my friends smoke too, and I see ads influencing them.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
marketing executive (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the company might face some ad strategy changes, I think we'll still find ways to market within restrictions.
- Ultimately, the impact on my personal finances will depend on how our strategies evolve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
college freshman (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing e-cigarette ads could change how often my friends use them, maybe encourage less use.
- It's hard to tell if this will really stop people, but I guess less advertising can't hurt in reducing curiosity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
retired (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm grateful for measures that reduce smoking and e-cigarette use, as I know how difficult quitting can be.
- I don't see this affecting me personally since I don't follow tobacco ads anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
healthcare provider (Boston, MA)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy supports what we've been advocating for reducing tobacco dependence.
- Hope this policy will lead to more resources being directed towards cessation aids and support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $58000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $66000000)
Year 2: $59000000 (Low: $51000000, High: $67000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $52000000, High: $68000000)
Year 5: $61000000 (Low: $53000000, High: $69000000)
Year 10: $62000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- Advertising deduction removal can make advertising prohibitively expensive, reducing tobacco brand visibility.
- Higher costs of advertising may drive companies to increase product prices, possibly reducing consumption.
- Reduced advertising can benefit public health by reducing exposure to tobacco products.