Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Commentary

Debunking the taxation–contraband tobacco myth

Robert Schwartz and Bo Zhang
CMAJ April 05, 2016 188 (6) 401-402; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150492
Robert Schwartz
Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (Schwartz, Zhang), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (Schwartz), Toronto, Ont.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bo Zhang
Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (Schwartz, Zhang), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (Schwartz), Toronto, Ont.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Tobacco use is still the leading cause of preventable death in Canada and is a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Tobacco use has declined in Canada from 50% in the 1960s to 19% in 2013, but the rate of decline has slowed substantially in recent years.

In a CMAJ commentary in 2015, Jha and Alleyne1 make the point that the single biggest driver of reduced tobacco consumption is increasing taxation. However, Canadian (federal, provincial and territorial) governments have not taken up the challenge to substantially raise tobacco taxes. One apparent explanation is the fear, promoted by the tobacco industry, that raising taxes will fuel increases in the contraband tobacco market. Indeed, international research indicates that the availability of contraband tobacco makes governments wary that adoption of evidence-informed tobacco control policies would drive more tobacco users to the contraband market.2,3

Contraband tobacco is particularly a problem in Canada. According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Contraband Tobacco Enforcement Strategy,4 the bulk of contraband tobacco seized comes from four First Nations reserves that straddle the border with the United States and may be a large source of income for these communities.

The tobacco industry consistently argues that the solution to reduce smuggling problems is to reduce tobacco taxes. Indeed, the tobacco industry and its partners argue that higher tobacco prices would result in increased contraband use.2 In addition, a Fraser Institute report5 identifies tobacco taxes as “a primary precipitating factor” in the growth of the contraband tobacco market in Canada.

A close look at evidence from international experience and analysis of Canadian data refute the claims by the tobacco industry and the Fraser Institute. An expert panel hosted by the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) concluded that there is sufficient evidence that tax avoidance and tax evasion reduce, but do not eliminate, the public health and revenue impact of tobacco tax increases. Evidence from many countries shows that tobacco use falls and tax revenues rise following a tax increase, even when there is increased tax avoidance and evasion.6 Three American studies (using state-level sales and cigarette excise tax revenue data7 and representative data from population surveys8,9) found that contraband tobacco activity increased somewhat after tax increases and returned to previous levels within 12 months. The rebound in legal sales following the initial drop in sales is likely due to smokers returning to established cigarette purchasing habits (e.g., buying by the pack at nearby convenience stores) after using up stockpiles. In general, sales resume at a new stable level within two to four months after a tax increase. An analysis of cigarette prices and levels of smuggling in 16 European countries2 found no correlation between tobacco prices (taxation) and rates of contraband tobacco activity. A simulation analysis3 based on data of cigarette sales, exports and imports, prices, taxes, corruption and smuggling incentives in 110 countries worldwide forecasted that tobacco tax increases would result in decreased cigarette consumption, increased tax revenue and only marginal increases in contraband tobacco use. However, extrapolation from foreign experience must be done with caution, because the Canadian contraband market differs from those in other jurisdictions.

A 2015 report by the University of Toronto’s Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (OTRU) indicated that there was no correlation between increases in tobacco taxes and contraband tobacco use in Ontario or in Canada overall.10 According to the report, any purchase of contraband cigarettes over a six-month period among Ontario smokers has been declining since 2008 (2.9 percentage points per year; p for linear trend = 0.033). During this period, the price of cigarettes increased by $0.78 per pack per year and cigarette tax (total tax including federal excise duty, provincial excise tax and provincial harmonized sales tax) increased by $0.85 per pack per year. Any purchase of contraband cigarettes was not significantly correlated with cigarette tax or cigarette price (Figure 1 of the report). These data on contraband use were based on self-reports and likely underestimate contraband use; however, this underestimation would be constant over time.

The RCMP’s statistics on contraband tobacco in the 2015 OTRU report also showed a decline in seizures of contraband cigarettes since 2008 (Figure 2 of the report).10 From 2008 to 2012, the average number of seizures declined by 150 568 cartons or unmarked bags each year (p for linear trend = 0.018).

Based on the evidence presented here, the notion that increasing tobacco taxes necessarily leads to increasing use of contraband tobacco is false. Evidence and experiences from Canada and other countries have shown that increases in tobacco taxes lead to reductions in cigarette smoking and increases in tobacco tax revenues, even when they are accompanied by some contraband tobacco use.

In their commentary, Jha and Alleyne1 noted that tripling excise taxes in most countries is the only plausible way to meet the World Health Organization’s recommendation to reduce consumption by 30% by 2025. Indeed, a well-established evidence base, including systematic reviews and the expert panel hosted by the IARC, has indicated that, as the price of tobacco increases through tax measures, tobacco use decreases.6,11 Estimates of price elasticity in high-income countries are in the range of −0.25 to −0.5 (most clustering around −0.4) for a 1% increase in tobacco price.11 When both France and South Africa tripled the price of cigarettes over a 15-year period, cigarette consumption was halved.12

Although increasing tobacco taxes may lead some smokers to seek contraband cigarettes, evidence indicates that only a small proportion of smokers will do this, and mostly for a limited period. Furthermore, when tobacco tax increases are accompanied by enhanced enforcement and control, increases in contraband can largely be curbed.3,11

High levels of taxation can discourage young people from starting smoking and can help smokers quit, which will decrease the overall tobacco use and associated morbidity and mortality in Canada.

Key points
  • The notion that increasing tobacco taxes necessarily leads to increasing use of contraband tobacco is false.

  • Lowering tobacco taxes is not the solution to the contraband tobacco problem.

  • A strong evidence base indicates that, as the price of tobacco increases through tax measures, tobacco use decreases.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Both authors contributed substantially to the conception and design of the article and the interpretation of data. Bo Zhang drafted the article, and Robert Schwartz revised it critically for important intellectual content. Both authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to act as guarantors of the work.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jha P,
    2. Alleyne G
    . Effective global tobacco control in the next decade. CMAJ 2015;187:551–2.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Joossens L,
    2. Raw M
    . Cigarette smuggling in Europe: Who really benefits? Tob Control 1998;7:66–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Yürekli A,
    2. Sayginosoy Ö
    . Worldwide organized cigarette smuggling: an empirical analysis. Appl Econ 2010;42:545–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    Contraband Tobacco Enforcement Strategy. Ottawa: Royal Canadian Mounted Police; 2008. Available: www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/tobac-tabac/tobacco-tabac-strat-2008-eng.pdf (accessed 2015 Sept. 8).
  5. ↵
    1. Gabler N,
    2. Katz D
    . Contraband tobacco in Canada: tax policies and black market incentives. Vancouver: Fraser Institute; 2010. www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/contraband-tobacco-in-canada.pdf (accessed 2015 Mar. 6).
  6. ↵
    1. Chaloupka FJ,
    2. Straif K,
    3. Leon ME
    ; Working Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control. Tob Control 2011;20:235–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Farrelly MC,
    2. Nimsch CT,
    3. James J
    . State cigarette excise taxes: implications for revenue and tax evasion: final report. Research Triangle Park (NC): RTI International, Health, Social and Economics Research; 2003. Available: https://rti.org/pubs/8742_Excise_Taxes_FR_5-03.pdf (accessed 2015 Apr. 12).
  8. ↵
    1. Emery S,
    2. White MM,
    3. Gilpin EA,
    4. et al
    . Was there significant tax evasion after the 1999 50 cent per pack cigarette tax increase in California? Tob Control 2002;11:130–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. DeCicca P,
    2. Kenkel D,
    3. Liu F
    . Excise tax avoidance: the case state of cigarette taxes [NBER Working Paper Series]. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2010. Available: www.nber.org/papers/w15941.pdf 2010 (accessed 2015 Mar. 16).
  10. ↵
    1. Zhang B,
    2. Schwartz R
    . What effect does tobacco taxation have on contraband? Debunking the taxation — the contrand tobaco myth. Toronto: Ontario Tobacco Research Unit; 2015. Available: http://otru.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/special_tax_contraband_final.pdf (accessed 2015 May 18).
  11. ↵
    1. Chaloupka FJ,
    2. Yurekli A,
    3. Fong GT
    . Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tob Control 2012;21:172–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Jha P,
    2. Peto R
    . Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N Engl J Med 2014;370:60–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (6)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 6
5 Apr 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Debunking the taxation–contraband tobacco myth
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Debunking the taxation–contraband tobacco myth
Robert Schwartz, Bo Zhang
CMAJ Apr 2016, 188 (6) 401-402; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150492

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Debunking the taxation–contraband tobacco myth
Robert Schwartz, Bo Zhang
CMAJ Apr 2016, 188 (6) 401-402; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150492
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • How can Canada’s health systems improve care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?
  • Minimally invasive procedures in gender-affirming care: the case for public funding across Canada
  • Time for Canada to align with global innovations in treatment for tuberculosis
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Tobacco control & smoking

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire