Is roll-your-own tobacco substitute for manufactured cigarettes: evidence from Ireland?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When tax policies increase tobacco prices some smokers may switch to smoking cheaper roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco. To reduce the harm from smoking, this substitution effect should be avoided. This study analyses whether RYO tobacco is a substitute for manufactured cigarettes (MCs) in Ireland, a country with relatively high price for both products. METHODS: Data on duty-paid consumption of RYO tobacco from 1978 to 2011 are used to estimate the demand by applying seemingly unrelated regression and error correction models. Covariates include prices of tobacco in Ireland and in the UK, income and a variable describing tobacco-related health policies. RESULTS: We failed to find evidence of RYO tobacco being a substitute for MC due to price differences. However, an increase in incomes (1%) is associated with a reduction in the consumption of RYO tobacco (-0.4%), which can be due to substitution towards MCs in addition to quitting or cutting back. Also, an increase in the price of RYO tobacco (1%) is associated with a reduction in its consumption (-1%). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing prices via taxation is an effective way of reducing the consumption of RYO tobacco but due to associations between RYO tobacco smoking and lower incomes, these policies should be accompanied by measures aimed at helping smokers to quit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".