IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1989792144-151_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of the antismoking campaign: An update

Author

Listed:
  • Warner, K.E.

Abstract

In the absence of the antismoking campaign, adult per capita cigarette consumption in 1987 would have been an estimated 79-89 per cent higher than the level actually experienced. The smoking prevalence of all birth cohorts of men and women born during this century is well below that which would have been expected in the absence of the campaign. As a consequence, in 1985 an estimated 56 million Americans were smokers; without the campaign, an estimated 91 million would have been smokers. As a result of campaign-induced decisions not to smoke, between 1964 and 1985 an estimated 789,200 Americans avoided or postponed smoking-related deaths and gained an average of 21 additional years of life expectancy each; collectively this represents more than 16 million person-years of additional life. The greatest health benefit lies in the future, however, as younger individuals reach the ages at which smoking claims its greatest toll, and as middle-aged former smokers realize relative reductions in smoking mortality risks as a result of long-term abstinence from smoking. For example, campaign-induced decisions not to smoke made prior to 1986 will result in the postponement or avoidance of an estimated 2.1 million smoking-related deaths between 1986 and the year 2000.

Suggested Citation

  • Warner, K.E., 1989. "Effects of the antismoking campaign: An update," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(2), pages 144-151.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1989:79:2:144-151_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carrieri, Vincenzo & Principe, Francesco, 2022. "WHO and for how long? An empirical analysis of the consumers’ response to red meat warning," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Chiang-Ming Chen & Kuo-Liang Chang & Lin Lin & Jwo-Leun Lee, 2014. "Brand switching or reduced consumption? A study of how cigarette taxes affect tobacco consumption," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 991-998, December.
    3. Theodore R. Holford & Lauren Clark, 2012. "Chapter 4: Development of the Counterfactual Smoking Histories Used to Assess the Effects of Tobacco Control," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(s1), pages 39-50, August.
    4. Alison L. Sexton Ward & Timothy K. M. Beatty, 2016. "Who Responds to Air Quality Alerts?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 487-511, October.
    5. Pierre‐Yves Crémieux & Pierre Ouellette & Caroline Pilon, 1999. "Health care spending as determinants of health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(7), pages 627-639, November.
    6. Shimshack, Jay P. & Ward, Michael B., 2010. "Mercury advisories and household health trade-offs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 674-685, September.
    7. Sloan, Frank A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Taylor, Donald Jr., 2002. "Information, addiction, and 'bad choices': lessons from a century of cigarettes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 147-155, October.
    8. Philipson, Tomas & Posner, Richard A, 1994. "Public Spending on AIDS Education: An Economic Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 17-38, April.
    9. Carrieri, V.; & Principe, F.;, 2018. "WHO and for how long? An empirical analysis of the consumers’ response to red meat warning," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 18/08, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1989:79:2:144-151_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.