# data[].attributes.body
- Discuss any market failures, unintended consequences, or information imperfections affecting the situation in the article.
- Explain how these factors challenge or modify the predictions of the standard equilibrium model.
- Discuss potential unintended consequences, externalities, market power, or reasons the standard market equilibrium model may not be applicable.

# data[].attributes.body
Identify and explain relevant economic concepts related to the article.

Describe how the article ties into class economic principles.

# data[].attributes.body
Use a graphic to visually demonstrate the standard equilibrium model's application to the policy or situation in the article.

Analyze whether the model’s predictions align with the article's content.

# data[].attributes.body
Summarize the positive (descriptive) and normative (value-based) analysis of the policy or situation.

Present a reasoned conclusion on the policy's effectiveness, considering efficiency, equity, winners and losers, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Introduce the chosen news article and its source.

Provide a brief overview of the main points discussed in the article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US tobacco control in 2022 gets a mixed review from the American Lung Association | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although fewer US adults are smoking cigarettes than ever, smoking remains the cause of the most preventable disability and death, and the nation's smoking regulations are getting mixed grades from the American Lung Association.

# data[].attributes.body
The CNN Health article, "US Tobacco Control in 2022 Gets a Mixed Review from the American Lung Association," highlights the American Lung Association's impact on the US in tobacco control in 2022. Fewer adults are smoking than ever, but smoking is still among the top preventable causes of death in the US. The association celebrated federal anti-smoking media campaigns that encourage quitting but expressed ‘disappointment’ with a US government tobacco tax that has been unchanged for 14 years and, by another reckoning, has never been raised in all of that time. 2022 also brought no state increases in tobacco tax anywhere.

Although adult smoking rates are lower, there are still elevated rates of tobacco use for Native Americans, Alaska Native Americans, and members of the LGBTQ community. E-cigarette use among high-school students is still a big problem, with nearly 17 percent reporting ever trying them.

The FDA made some regulatory inroads, including supporting bans on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, but progress is minimal. The American Lung Association urged the FDA to act more quickly, and on synthetic nicotine products in particular. The states did a better job, with more increasing appropriations for tobacco control than decreasing them. However, the researchers awarded grades to all the states, failing Alabama and Texas for retrenching and making little or no progress.

# data[].attributes.body
The current era of tobacco control has proved effective, as smoking rates have fallen to all-time lows. However, with no recent rise in tobacco taxes and slower-than-anticipated forward movement on e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco, it is fair to say that more could be done to maximize the public health benefit. Politically, these policies are beset by minority state actions, and regulators are weighed down by slow federal advances. Equity is missed because marginalized groups are still more likely to smoke. Winners are those advocates and states that are funding their tobacco control programs at levels beyond inflation. Losers are regulatory-averse tobacco companies that are being taxed and regulated more than ever. On balance, these policies have been positive, but they fall short of what is needed to fully address the public health hazards associated with smoking and vaping.

# data[].attributes.body
This graph demonstrates the standard equilibrium model and the policy by showcasing the initial equilibrium and the one post government interventions. The graph showcases how higher taxes shift the supply curve to the left, which raises prices and decreases the quantity demanded. I also show how an increase in regulations, such as bans on flavoured products, also shifts the supply curve to the left because there’s less supply available. The demand also shifts lefts (decreases) because of the campaign and efforts from the government against smoking.

The model’s prediction aligns with some degree with the article's content, but not as much as the writer of the article would want to. The model predicts higher taxes should be reducing smoking rates by shifting (decreasing) supply, which aligns with the studies presented, but the article explains the lack of recent tax increases and government intervention hinders the prediction of the model to translate in real life. As for the demand, it also shifts left (decreases) because of the campaign and other efforts from the government to decrease the desire from people to smoke. This aligns because we are at an all-time low in terms of smokers, even if more actions are demanded to decrease it even more.

Overall, the model’s prediction aligns because it doesn’t specify exactly the changes in quantity and price. It gives a general direction in which in should be going, but there’s more drastic changes that are expected.

# data[].attributes.body
- Present a comparative analysis of the current situation with a past policy or scenario.
- Use real-world examples or expert viewpoints to provide a broader perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent years, there has been increased funding for state programs that prevent tobacco use, but that has not always been a concern for consumers. Tobacco was one of the first products to be taxed, but it was very cheap. In the ’50s, cigarette tax increased from $0.07 to $0.08 not to prevent people from purchasing cigarettes but to fund the Korean War. During that time, tobacco products were socially accepted, affordable, and easily available. Advertising for cigarettes was very prevalent, and there were no public health messages discouraging smoking. Today, the tobacco tax is much higher in an effort to discourage smoking, and that money from the tax is put into public health programs and educational campaigns. The FDA is also working on trying to hold tobacco companies accountable. We saw in 2020, the FDA put a ban on flavored Juul pods that were mainly marketed toward younger generations.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236771/

# data[].attributes.body
1) Relevant economic concepts

Public Goods and Externalities: Anti-tobacco initiatives are designed to mitigate the adverse externalities associated with smoking, including the health repercussions for non-smokers and the escalation of public healthcare costs. The article illustrates that strategies such as increasing taxes and imposing restrictions on tobacco sales are intended to alleviate these externalities.

Tax Policy and Elasticity of Demand: The article emphasizes that raising taxes on tobacco products may lead to a decrease in smoking prevalence, particularly among younger demographics, underscoring the economic principle of price elasticity. Given that the demand for tobacco is relatively elastic among youth, an increase in price resulting from taxation could result in reduced consumption.

Regulatory Economics: The actions taken by the FDA to restrict menthol and flavored tobacco products exemplify regulatory measures aimed at decreasing smoking rates among young individuals. This regulatory approach is consistent with the economic principle advocating for government intervention in markets where market failures are evident.

2) How the article ties into class economic principles

Government Intervention in Market Failures: The article discusses the government's implementation of policies, taxes, and regulations designed to alleviate the social costs associated with smoking, which result in negative externalities such as heigh healthcare costs and exposure to secondhand smoke.

Price Elasticity of Demand: Tobacco taxation, particularly effective among younger demographics, is based on the principle of elasticity. Given that younger consumers are generally more sensitive to price changes, increasing cigarette prices through taxation seeks to diminish demand within this group.

Behavioral Economics: The suggested prohibitions on menthol and flavored tobacco products reflect the behavioral economics concept of choice. By rendering tobacco products less attractive, the government aims to "nudge" individuals, particularly younger users, away from smoking.

Public Goods and Health as a Positive Externality: Anti-smoking initiatives serve the public good by fostering smoke-free environments and lowering health risks, which ultimately benefit society at large. These initiatives embody the notion that healthier populations enhance economic productivity.

Opportunity Cost: Campaigns that encourage smoking cessation relate to the concept of opportunity cost by advocating for healthier alternatives. By opting not to smoke, individuals can redirect their financial resources toward other, more advantageous goods and services.

Regulatory Economics: The FDA's role in overseeing tobacco products exemplifies regulatory economics, where government intervention is aimed at safeguarding consumers from harmful products.

# data[].attributes.body
Taxes imposed on e-cigarettes or tobacco can have negative unintended consequences. If there are taxes imposed on either, the other may be used as a substitute. This would not work in terms of the goal of the tax. The goal of taxing these products is to disincentivize people from using them. If people are willing to look toward substitutes to get their nicotine then the tax doesn't work entirely. The government could try to impose a flat tax on all nicotine products. This would deter people from looking toward substitutes since all forms of nicotine would receive the same tax.

Nicotine companies are also willing to combat the taxes through increased marketing. Imposing these taxes can result in nicotine companies trying harder to bring in new customers. These marketing strategies may bring in new users even with the tax in place. This conflict between the government and the nicotine companies can cause more unintended consequences within the market.