Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
qualitative study of
smoking, smuggling, and social deprivation
Susan Wiltshire a Public Health Sciences, Department of Community
Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh
EH8 9AG, b Research Unit in Health, Behaviour
and Change, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of
Edinburgh Medical School Correspondence to: A Amos amanda.amos{at}ed.ac.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objectives:
To examine the behaviour and attitudes
related to smoking and contraband tobacco products among smokers in two socially deprived areas.
Design:
Cross sectional study with qualitative
semistructured interviews, augmented by smokers' day grid.
Setting:
Two areas of socioeconomic deprivation in Edinburgh.
Participants:
50 male and 50 female smokers aged
25-40 years randomly selected from general practitioners' lists from
two health centres, each located in an area of deprivation.
Results:
Most smokers wanted to quit but felt unable to because of the importance of smoking in their daily routine and
their addiction to nicotine. Strategies for maintaining consumption levels in the face of increasing cigarette prices and low income included purchasing contraband cigarettes and tobacco. Vendors were
contacted through social networks, family, and friends as well as
common knowledge of people and places, particularly pubs where
contraband was available. Most users of contraband considered that
smugglers were providing a valuable service. Purchasing contraband tobacco was viewed as rational in the face of material hardship. Many
smokers criticised the government for its high tobacco taxation and the
lack of local services to help them to stop smoking.
Conclusions:
Smokers in deprived areas perceive a lack of support to help them to stop smoking. Cigarette and tobacco smuggling is therefore viewed positively by low income smokers as a way
of dealing with the increasing cost of cigarettes. Smokers in areas of
deprivation may thus show little support for tackling smuggling until
more action is taken to deal with the material and personal factors
that make it difficult for them to quit.
|
What is already known on this topic
What this study adds
|
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Smoking is strongly associated with social disadvantage and is an important contributor to inequalities in health.1-3 The greater an individual's level of disadvantage (as measured, for example, by occupation, income, education, housing tenure) the more likely they are to start smoking and the less likely they are to stop. 4 5 The government's white papers on tobacco and public health have identified reduction in smoking among low income groups as a priority and a key element of its strategy for tackling health inequalities. 2 6 7 Cessation services are being targeted at low income smokers and those who live in areas of deprivation. However, there is increasing concern that the impact of these services and the government's tobacco control strategy may be being undermined by the increasing availability of cheap, smuggled cigarettes and tobacco.8
The 1990s saw a massive increase in the smuggling of tobacco and cigarettes into the United Kingdom. It is estimated that currently a quarter to a third of cigarettes smoked in the United Kingdom, worth £2500 million in lost revenue during 1999, are smuggled or contraband.9 There is clear evidence that tobacco companies are complicit in smuggling.8-11 Tobacco companies use concerns about smuggling, and the resulting lost tax revenue, to exert political pressure on the government to lower tobacco taxes. Evidence from other countries shows that lowering taxes neither decreases smuggling nor reduces overall tobacco consumption.10
However, we know little about how smokers in areas of deprivation view
the issue of smuggled or contraband cigarettes and tobacco, how this
relates to their own smoking behaviour, and the implications for
policies and action on this issue. In this paper, which draws on a
wider study of smoking in areas of deprivation, we have focused on the
strategies that smokers living in such areas use to deal with the
financial costs of smoking. Specifically, we considered the role of
cigarette and tobacco smuggling: sources, availability, respondents'
rationale for purchasing contraband, and the impact of cheaper tobacco
products on smoking behaviour.
| |
Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Participants and setting
We used data from a two year
qualitative study of smokers living in two areas of Edinburgh that are defined as socially deprived by using deprivation category (DEPCAT) scores.12 The sample was randomly selected from general
practitioners' records of smokers at two health centres, each located
in one of the two areas. General practitioners sent out a letter with information about the study and an opt out form. We contacted respondents who did not opt out to arrange an interview. Of the 167 smokers with whom we made contact, we interviewed 50 men and 50 women
aged 25-40 years.
Interviews
Interviews, conducted from October 1999 to July
2000, were about one hour long and took place in respondents' homes. Respondents selected a recent day to describe in detail their "typical" smoking behaviour, and these data were entered on a day
grid.13 The grid recorded structured data on daily
experiences and events across different domains (home, work, leisure,
food, family, and friends) and cigarette use. We also used a checklist to guide discussion on current daily consumption; reasons for smoking;
environmental, social and other influences on smoking; and previous
attempts to stop and future intentions to stop.
Analysis
We transcribed the interviews into NUD*IST, with
the grids reproduced in Excel. We read transcripts in conjunction with
the grids and produced profile of "typical" daily smoking contextualised for each respondent. These profiles enabled smoking behaviour to be placed in context against routine events and
circumstances across the day. The transcribed data were analysed by all
the authors. Regular discussions were held to achieve consensus on emerging themes from the descriptive to the analytical stages. We
organised coding using NUD*IST, indexing data in terms of similarity and contrast of content. Finally, we compared and contrasted the conditions and circumstances in which smokers articulated these different themes with extracts from the transcripts used to illustrate particular points.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Most respondents lived in council or housing association accommodation. Less than half were in full time employment (table) and many of these worked irregular hours, such as variable shifts. Most smoked around 20 cigarettes a day, with women smoking slightly less than men (table). While most respondents stated that they wanted to stop smoking, few could contemplate abstinence for a day or longer as smoking was an important part of their daily routine and identity. Indeed, many respondents claimed to be addicted, most notably to cigarettes smoked at particular times of the day, such as first thing in the morning (A Bancroft, personal communication, 2001).
|
Respondents discussed the impact of smoking on their finances. Although they often commented that money for smoking would be found somehow, various conscious strategies were adopted to maintain smoking in difficult circumstances (box 1).
|
Contraband tobacco products
Several respondents admitted buying contraband, with most having
some knowledge of contraband, such as where to buy products, prices,
available brands, and countries of origin (box 2). This was often
referred to as buying "on the cheap." If respondents thought they
could not afford shop prices, then it was reasonable to access a seller
with cheaper products.
|
Access to contraband
There were several different sources of contraband, with the most
popular being public houses (box 3). One man (M19) spoke about the
availability of cheap tobacco in city pubs and the relative ease of
access. Other respondents took advantage of personal foreign holidays,
or those of family or friends, with their cross border tax
differentials. A minority of respondents were less specific about where
their tobacco products came from. Commodities could be accessed through
common knowledge
that is, they might hear of people who were able to
get them. As one woman confided: "it just depends, some people you
know, can get them" (F21). Other respondents spoke of vendors calling
at their houses, and one mentioned contraband being available in a
local shop (box 3).
|
Attitudes to smuggled tobacco products and government taxation
Respondents viewed smuggling as a reasonable response to the
perceived high price of cigarettes, due mainly to tax: "I mean the
thing is I just struggle even more to get the money for cigarettes, I
think . . . And of course there's all these illegal
supplies being brought in from France, people will just go and buy them
I would imagine" (F20).
|
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We have shown that an easily accessible cigarette and tobacco smuggling network operates in at least two deprived areas in Edinburgh and that smokers may access this in various ways. The primary rationale for doing so is that products acquired in this way decrease the costs of smoking for those living on scarce financial resources. Another motivating factor hinges on the notion of resistance. Respondents expressed grievances against the government for clawing back what they viewed as an excessive and regressive tax on tobacco products and for their failure to redirect this income visibly towards those in need. In particular, many highlighted the lack of support available to help them deal with what they thought was, given their difficult circumstances, an intractable addiction to tobacco. There was a strong feeling that the government was exploiting poorer people through regressive tobacco taxation. Use of contraband was one means of challenging this perceived injustice. No respondent mentioned the major role of tobacco companies in smuggling. Rather they viewed smugglers as people similar to themselves who provided a welcome service for smokers in their area.
|
The study had several limitations. The sample was small and was
not intended to provide statistically representative views of smokers
in these areas. Given the illegal nature of purchasing contraband,
respondents were not pressed to state explicitly whether they had
purchased contraband and thus many more may have been involved than are
reported here. An increasing number of smokers in these areas may be
accessing contraband as participants interviewed towards the end of the
study were more willing to talk about this than those interviewed
earlier. However, despite these limitations it seems that, given the
dual pressures of nicotine addiction and surviving on low incomes, many
smokers will be predisposed to buy contraband where this is available
or exploit cross border tax differentials, or both. Smuggling
stimulates and maintains consumption through its low prices and acts to
nullify one of the major planks of the government's tobacco control
strategy
regular, above inflation, increases in tobacco taxation. The
government has already taken action to reduce smuggling, but more needs
to be done. This could include ensuring that details of the wholesaler, countries of origin, and destination are clearly marked on
packets.14 However, this study suggests that smokers in
areas of deprivation may show little support for tackling smuggling
until more action is taken to deal with the wider material and personal
factors that make it so difficult for them to quit. Many smokers would support action by the government to deal with the regressive nature of
tobacco taxation. This would include addressing poverty and social
inequalities and providing more readily accessible and acceptable
support for smoking cessation in disadvantaged
communities.15 A proportion of tobacco taxation could be
allocated to this end. At the very least it is essential that the
cessation services that have started to emerge with funding from the
white paper are given long term sustainable funding and are expanded to
become more accessible to disadvantaged smokers across
Britain.16
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank the participants and the general practitioners who participated in this study and Ruth Scott for her secretarial support. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding body.
Contributors: SW undertook the primary data analysis and drafting of the paper. AA and OP had the original idea for the study, supervised the project, and were involved in designing the interview schedule, identification of coding themes, discussion of data analysis, and editing of the paper. AB was involved in designing the interview schedule, undertook all the interviews and most of the data coding, and commented on drafts of the paper. AA and OP are guarantors.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Executive Health Department.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Bridgwood A, Lilly R, Thomas M, Bacon J, Sykes W, Morris S. Living in Britain 1998. London: Stationery Office, 2000 |
| 2. | Secretary of State for Scotland. Towards a healthier Scotland. Edinburgh: Stationery Office, 1999. |
| 3. | Dorset R, Marsh A. The health trap: poverty, smoking and lone parenthood. In: London: Policy Studies Institute, 1998. |
| 4. |
Graham H, Der G.
Patterns and predictors of smoking cessation among British women.
Health Promot Internation
1999;
14:
231-239 |
| 5. |
Graham H, Der G.
Influences on women's smoking status: the contribution of socioeconomic status in adolescence and adulthood.
Eur J Public Health
1999;
9:
137-141 |
| 6. | Secretary of State for Health. Smoking kills. London: Stationery Office, 1999. |
| 7. | Secretary of State for Health. Saving lives: our healthier nation. London: Stationery Office, 1999. |
| 8. | Joossens L. Smuggling and cross-border shopping of tobacco products in the European Union. London: Health Education Authority, 1999. |
| 9. | Rowell A, Bates C. Tobacco smuggling in the UK. London: Action on Smoking and Health, 2000. |
| 10. |
Joossens L, Raw M.
Cigarette smuggling in Europe: who really benefits?
Tob Control
1998;
7:
66-71 |
| 11. |
Jha P, Chaloupka FJ.
The economics of global tobacco control.
BMJ
2000;
321:
358-361 |
| 12. | Carstairs V, Morris R. Deprivation and health in Scotland. Health Bull Edinb 1990; 48: 162-165. |
| 13. | Parry O, Thomson C, Fowkes FG. Life course data collection: qualitative interviewing using the life grid. Sociological Research Online 1999;4(2) on www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/4/2/parry.html (accessed 5 July 2001). |
| 14. |
Joossens L, Raw M.
How can cigarette smuggling be reduced?
BMJ
2000;
321:
947-950 |
| 15. |
Gaunt-Richardson P, Amos A, Howie G, McKie L, Moore M.
Women, low income and smoking breaking down the barriers.
Edinburgh: Action on Smoking and Health Scotland/Health Education Board for Scotland, 1999.
|
| 16. | Crosier A. A rapid mapping study of smoking projects and services targeted at people living on low income and/or minority ethnic groups. London: Health Development Agency, 2001. |
(Accepted 29 June 2001)
Read all Rapid Responses