| We examine government regulation of smoking in the United States. To study sumptuary aspects, we develop a cognitive smoking theory that incorporates ideas of nicotine addiction and expected utility. We then use our smoking theory to specify a system of equations, with cigarette consumption per capita 14+, average nicotine yield per cigarette, and real cigarette ad spending per capita 14+ as endogenous variables. We estimate the system by 2SLS with quarterly data from 1961 through 1983. To study political aspects, we use theories of policy innovation and diffusion to compare the benefits of nine government antismoking initiatives to actors in the regulatory system.;The introduction of new cigarette brands/varieties, but not higher real advertising spending, is associated with increased aggregate demand. Increased real income is also associated with higher demand. The 1964 Surgeon General's Report is associated with a large but very brief demand decrease. In order of declining impact, other regulatory actions associated with decreased aggregate demand are increasing real cigarette prices, limiting where people may smoke, and broadcasting antismoking commercials (the "Fairness Doctrine"). Average nicotine yields, the radio/TV cigarette ad ban, and reporting tar/nicotine contents of brands have no impact on aggregate demand. The 1966, 1970, and 1972 warning labels have no independent effects and no joint effect; neither do they interact with real price to decrease overall consumption. In other words, using stronger rhetoric in warning labels or putting the labels in ads as well as on packages make no difference.;The regulatory system acts based on political gains and losses. Warning labels and advertising bans have great value politically because they are highly visible symbolic victories for regulation, minimize the political costs of regulation, and keep antiregulation groups permanently on the defensive. Such gains explain why so many ineffective regulations are enacted.;The optimal sumptuary program would include government controls on the introduction of new brands as well as higher excise taxes, restaurant smoking restrictions in more states, and more antismoking ads on radio and TV. Impotent regulations like warning labels and advertising bans should be redesigned so that they support these effective rules. |
