







































 Humanities and Social Science Research; Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

ISSN 2576-3024   E-ISSN 2576-3032 

https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v8n4p103 

 103 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Enhancing Tobacco Control Policies Among Youth and College 

Students: Limitations and Future Directions 

Xiao Huang1 

1 Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China 

Correspondence: Xiao Huang, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, China. 

 

Received: July 24, 2025; Accepted: August 3, 2025; Published: August 4, 2025 

 

Abstract 

Tobacco use is still a serious issue among youth and college students in the United States. Although the government, 

especially the Department of Health and Human Services, has made efforts through policies like taxation, smoke-

free laws, and advertising bans, these methods have not been effective enough. This paper discusses the main 

problems of each policy: the tax rate is not high enough to stop students from buying cigarettes, smoke-free policies 

are not fully enforced especially in outdoor areas, and advertising bans are not strict or complete. To improve the 

situation, the paper suggests raising the tax on cigarettes nationwide, making all college campuses completely 

smoke-free (both indoors and outdoors), and banning all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion. These 

changes could help lower the smoking rate among youth and college students, protect their health, and reduce 

future harm. Though these contributions may seem small at first, they are necessary steps toward solving a long-

term public health problem. 

Keywords: tobacco control, youth smoking, college students, nicotine addiction, public health 

1. Introduction 

Smoking, which was first invented as a ritual for spiritual enlightenment around 18,000 years ago in ancient Asia, 

has long been regarded by the public as a harmful and highly addictive behavior [1]. According to the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, smoking remains one of the leading and most preventable causes of death both in 

the United States and around the world [2]. An even more striking and concerning fact is that approximately 

480,000 deaths each year are directly caused by smoking, making it one of the top public health concerns for both 

the U.S. Government and various national health organizations [3]. Specifically in charge of addressing this issue, 

the Department of Health and Human Services has been working diligently over the years to introduce and carry 

out a variety of acts and policies related to tobacco control. As smoking is a habit that most often develops during 

the early stages of adulthood, especially among young people, controlling tobacco consumption among youth and 

college students should be viewed as one of the primary goals of any general tobacco control act or initiative. 

Although, according to Statista, smokers are more commonly found among older citizens, college students still 

account for approximately 12 to 15 percent of the total smoking population in the United States [4]. That is to say, 

approximately one out of every seven friends a person has is likely to be a smoker, assuming that the person 

themself is a non-smoker.  

The Department of Youth Services, under the larger umbrella of the Department of Health and Human Services, 

in cooperation with other policymakers, has been responsible for enforcing numerous laws and policies aimed at 

controlling the tobacco consumption rate among youth and college students. Taxation, smoke-free laws, and 

advertising and promotional bans are three of the major policy approaches currently being implemented in order 

to reduce the tobacco consumption rate among young people. However, the current tax rate on tobacco products 

is not high enough to significantly discourage purchases among young consumers; the smoke-free policy is not 

broadly or uniformly enforced across different campuses and public spaces; the bans on tobacco advertising and 

promotion are implemented in a loose and inconsistent manner, leaving many loopholes behind. This paper will 

discuss the reasons why these policies have not been effective enough and propose possible improvements, 

including increasing the tobacco tax rate, expanding the enforcement of smoke-free policies, and strictly banning 

all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion. 

2. Taxation 

Imposing an excise tax on tobacco products—which was first proposed by Alexander Hamilton as early as 1794—

has become one of the most widely adopted policies in the regulation of tobacco consumption [5]. Rooted in the 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 104 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

basic economic principle that an increase in price can reduce the demand for a product to some extent, taxation is 

expected to serve as an effective method for controlling tobacco use, especially in the case of youth and college 

students. Since the majority of youth and college students either do not have a regular income or only earn a small 

amount, they tend to be more price-sensitive compared to older individuals with stable and higher incomes [6]. 

However, the actual effectiveness of the taxation policy has turned out to fall below policymakers’ original 

expectations and assumptions. One major problem with this policy is that the current tax rate is not high enough 

to stop a large number of young people from purchasing tobacco products. Nicotine, which is the main addictive 

chemical component in cigarettes, damages the brain development of young individuals and causes these smokers 

to become highly dependent on continued consumption [7]. As a result, these young smokers often perceive the 

value of cigarettes to be higher than the price level that existing tax policies had originally assumed would be 

enough to prevent them from smoking [8]. Another issue related to taxation involves the uneven and unfair 

differences in cigarette tax rates across different states. The fluctuation in tobacco tax rates from state to state 

creates strong incentives for individuals to smuggle tobacco products from regions with lower taxes to those with 

higher ones [8]. For example, according to the STATE System Excise Tax Fact Sheet published by the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, in 2024, the average tax for a pack of cigarettes in New York State is $5.35, 

whereas in neighboring Pennsylvania, the tax is only $2.60 per pack [9]. It is easy to imagine that smuggling 

activities could be quite common in such border areas where the tax gap is significant. 

To better improve the current taxation policy, the Department of Health and Human Services should collaborate 

with other departments to impose a higher and more uniformly applied tax rate on tobacco products across all 

states. What these departments need to do is revise the existing tobacco tax law and formally pass new legislation 

that legitimizes a higher and more consistent tax rate on tobacco products nationwide. Nowadays, the highest 

cigarette tax in the United States stands at $5.35 per pack in New York, while the lowest tax rate is only 17 cents 

per pack in Missouri [9]. It would be very helpful if those departments in charge could raise the average tax rate 

to more than $5 per pack across all states. A high-tax policy on tobacco products could compel a significant number 

of people to quit smoking simply because they can no longer afford the high cost of cigarettes. Imposing high 

taxes on tobacco products is particularly effective in reducing smoking rates among youth and college students. 

As statistical data suggests, a 10 percent increase in the price of tobacco products could lead to an 11 to 12 percent 

decrease in consumption among young adults [10]. Raising cigarette taxes to a level that students simply cannot 

afford serves as a direct and effective approach to cutting down tobacco consumption [6]. In addition to raising 

tax rates, uniformity must be enforced through a national equal-tax law. With the implementation of such a law, it 

would no longer be possible for people to seek out and purchase cigarettes at significantly cheaper prices across 

state lines. In other words, this would also help prevent smuggling activities that arise from tax differences between 

states. Imposing higher and consistent taxation on tobacco products in each state is a useful policy tool for 

controlling tobacco consumption, especially among price-sensitive groups like youth and college students. 

Government departments need to revise the current laws that allow for low tax rates on tobacco products in certain 

regions. Furthermore, the government should pass legislation requiring a fair and uniform tobacco product tax to 

be enforced in every state. 

3. Smoke-Free Policies 

The smoke-free policy has become one important aspect of the broader smoke-control movement in recent years 

[11]. The basic idea behind this policy is to restrict people from smoking in specifically designated areas. Because 

individuals are no longer allowed to smoke in these areas as they were before the policy was implemented, they 

are forced to reduce their tobacco consumption, and over time, they may even give up smoking altogether. One 

example taken from several workplaces shows that smoke-free laws in the workplace can reduce smoking 

prevalence by approximately four percent [8]. This policy is regarded as one of the most effective and widely used 

strategies in tobacco control, but there are still several problems that interfere with its full effectiveness. Although 

smoking is widely prohibited in all indoor areas across the United States, people can still find numerous other 

places where smoking is permitted. Most of these remaining smoking spots are public outdoor areas. In the case 

of youth and college students, this means that although they are not allowed to smoke in enclosed areas such as 

classrooms and restaurants, they are still free to smoke in outdoor spaces like public walkways and campus 

pathways. Simply banning indoor smoking is not effective enough to make a real difference. As long as smoking 

areas remain accessible, not many students will feel the pressure to quit. As of April 2019, approximately only 55 

percent of college and university campuses in the United States had implemented smoke-free policies, not to 

mention that some still allow e-cigarette consumption in certain areas [12]. Without a strong, centralized act from 

the Department of Health and Human Services, the implementation of uniform tobacco control policies continues 

to remain fragmented and inconsistent across states and educational institutions. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 105 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

To improve the effectiveness of smoke-free laws among youth and college students, a comprehensive campus-

wide policy that prohibits smoking in both outdoor and indoor areas is urgently needed. By banning smoking not 

only in indoor locations but also in outdoor areas, students would no longer have access to smoking spaces during 

school hours. This significant change would compel a large number of students to reduce their tobacco 

consumption, and in many cases, eventually quit smoking altogether. A successful example can be seen at Indiana 

University, where statistical data from 2011 suggests that the implementation of a campus-wide smoke-free policy 

reduced smoking behavior among students by approximately four percent and increased their positive attitudes 

toward smoking regulations by about six percent [13]. 

Also, in order to effectively enforce a campus-wide smoke-free policy, clearly visible ground markings and signs 

should be placed in key areas for students to notice, and positive reinforcement cards and flyers should be 

distributed to strengthen students' awareness and impression of the policy [14]. In general, the Department of 

Youth and Human Services should collaborate with the Department of Education to formally legitimize a 

mandatory campus-wide smoke-free law. These government departments should be responsible for supervising 

and ensuring that all schools across the United States implement this smoke-free policy consistently. The decision 

to implement a campus-wide smoke-free policy should no longer be left to the discretion of individual school 

policymakers, but should instead be established as a strict law that every school is required to obey. Such a strong 

and comprehensive smoke-free policy could significantly help reduce tobacco consumption and lower the smoking 

rate among youth and college students to a meaningful degree. 

4. Advertising and Promotional Bans 

Back in the old days, tobacco companies used to be one of the major forms of television advertising. However, 

since the introduction of advertising and promotion bans on tobacco products in 1969, tobacco advertising has 

been removed from television broadcasts [5]. As widely recognized by the general public and confirmed by experts 

from the World Health Organization, tobacco advertising can “attract non-smokers to smoke,” “increase the 

amount of tobacco consumption among current smokers,” “reduce a smoker’s willingness to quit,” and “encourage 

former smokers to smoke again” [15]. In this sense, advertising and promotion bans do help reduce smoking 

behavior and overall tobacco consumption. However, these bans are still not comprehensive enough in their current 

form. In other words, not all forms of tobacco product advertising and promotion—such as those involving 

cigarettes—are fully prohibited. As a group especially vulnerable to marketing influence, youth and college 

students are still exposed to a large amount of tobacco promotion in various forms. In fact, research shows that out 

of approximately 210 countries worldwide, only 39—such as EU member states, Australia, New Zealand, South 

Africa, and Thailand—have enacted laws that restrict all forms of tobacco advertising [16]. 

In order to further reduce the smoking rate and overall tobacco consumption among youth and college students in 

the United States, a comprehensive ban on all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion is urgently needed. 

What the U.S. government should do is strictly ban all forms of tobacco advertising across all areas and platforms. 

The government should not only establish laws that ban traditional forms of tobacco advertisements, such as those 

on television and radio, but also prohibit less regulated forms like cigarette flyers and tobacco sponsorships. In 

addition, government departments should enforce strong penalties against any illegal advertisements and 

promotional activities related to tobacco products. As shown by studies [17], tobacco advertising causes young 

people to overestimate the prevalence of smoking in society and distorts their understanding of social norms. This 

misconception leads young people to believe that smoking is socially “desirable,” which increases the likelihood 

that they will start smoking and purchase tobacco products [18]. By blocking all types of tobacco advertising and 

promotion, the smoking rate has been shown to decrease by approximately six percent [19]. A comparative study 

involving students from two schools—one in Finland, where tobacco advertising is completely banned, and one 

in the United States, where it is only partially banned—concluded that there is a significant positive correlation 

between exposure to tobacco advertisements and smoking prevalence [18]. All of these facts and examples suggest 

that the government must not only block explicit forms of tobacco advertising, but also prohibit more implicit 

forms such as sponsorships of concerts, festivals, and sporting events. A strong push for comprehensive bans on 

all tobacco advertising and promotion is expected from both the Department of Health and Human Services and 

the federal government as a whole. 

5. Implications and Conclusions 

Tobacco products harm both physical and mental health, and they have particularly strong negative impacts on 

youth and college students. The Department of Health and Human Services should cooperate with other policy-

making departments to further improve the acts and regulations related to the tobacco control movement. More 

intensive and equitable taxation policies, comprehensive smoke-free laws covering both indoor and outdoor spaces, 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 106 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

and complete bans on all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion are the essential first steps that need to be 

taken to further reduce smoking and tobacco consumption rates, especially among youth and college students. In 

addition, refinement and revision of other existing tobacco-related policies and laws should also be carefully 

considered.  

Teenagers and young adults are a vital part of the country's future development. Reducing smoking and tobacco 

consumption among them is a way to improve their overall physical and mental performance. Statistical data shows 

that lung cancer has been the most common type of cancer worldwide for several decades [20]. Smoking, which 

increases the likelihood of developing lung cancer by about 15 times compared to non-smokers, is responsible for 

one-eighth of all cancer-related deaths worldwide [20] [21]. Controlling and reducing tobacco consumption and 

smoking rates is ultimately an act of saving lives. From an economic perspective, reducing tobacco consumption 

would eventually lead to a decrease in tobacco production, allowing resources and labor to be redirected toward 

the production of more beneficial and socially valuable goods. In the long run, lowering tobacco consumption 

would contribute to a more efficient and sustainable economic system. Even though this contribution may not 

seem particularly remarkable at first, it could still bring meaningful improvements to the society. Controlling and 

reducing tobacco consumption, especially among youth and college students, is an important mission that the 

Department of Health and Human Services and other related agencies should actively pursue. To achieve this goal, 

these departments need to improve their current policies and devote greater energy and effort throughout the entire 

process. 

References 

[1] World Health Organization. (n.d.). Tobacco. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://www.who.int/news-

room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco 

[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Cigarette smoking in the United States. Retrieved July 28, 

2025, from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-

states.html 

[3] Lushniak, B. D. (n.d.). The Health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon 

General. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/21569 

[4] Coleman, S. R. M., Gaalema, D. E., Nighbor, T. D., Kurti, A. A., Bunn, J. Y., & Higgins, S. T. (2019). Current 

cigarette smoking among U.S. college graduates. Preventive Medicine, 128, 105853. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105853 

[5] McGrew, J. L. (n.d.). History of Tobacco Regulation. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from 

https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2b_3.htm 

[6] Chaloupka, F., & Pacula, R. (2001). The Impact of Price on Youth Tobacco Use. National Cancer Institute. 

[7] Kong, A. Y., & King, B. A. (2021). Boosting the Tobacco Control Vaccine: Recognizing the role of the retail 

environment in addressing tobacco use and disparities. Tobacco Control, 30(e2), e162–e168. 

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055722 

[8] Warner, K. E., & Mendez, D. (2010). Tobacco control policy in developed countries: Yesterday, today, and 

tomorrow. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12(9), 876–887. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq125 

[9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). State Excise Tax Fact Sheet. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from 

https://www.cdc.gov/statesystem/factsheets/excisetax/ExciseTax.html 

[10] Chaloupka, F. J., & Liccardo Pacula, R. L. (n.d.). The Impact of Price on Youth Tobacco Use (Monograph 14, 

Chapter 12). Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-

06/m14_12.pdf 

[11] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Secondhand smoke policies. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/policy.html 

[12] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Indicator C-SA: Cigarette 

smoking among students. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csa.asp 

[13] Seo, D., Macy, J. T., Torabi, M. R., & Middlestadt, S. E. (2011). The effect of a smoke-free campus policy on 

college students' smoking behaviors and attitudes. Preventive Medicine, 53(4-5), 347–352. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.07.015 

[14] Harris, K., Stearns, J. N., Kovach, R. G., & Harrar, S. W. (2009). Enforcing an outdoor smoking ban on a 

college campus: Effects of a multicomponent approach. Journal of American College Health, 58(2), 121–126. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2025 

 107 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

[15] World Health Organization. (2008). WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008: The MPOWER 

package. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241596282 

[16] Freeman, B., Watts, C., & Astuti, P. A. S. (2022). Global tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship 

regulation: What’s old, what’s new and where to next? Tobacco Control, 31, 216–221. 

[17] Reid, J. L., Manske, S. R., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2008). Factors related to adolescents’ estimation of peer 

smoking prevalence. Health Education Research, 23(1), 81–93. 

[18] Burton, D., Graham, J. W., Johnson, C., Uutela, A., Vartiainen, E., & Palmer, R. F. (2010). Perceptions of 

smoking prevalence by youth in countries with and without a tobacco advertising ban. Journal of Health 

Communication, 15(6), 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499595 

[19] Saffer, H., & Chaloupka, F. (2000). The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. Journal 

of Health Economics, 19, 1117–1137. 

[20] Bray, F., Laversanne, M., Sung, H., et al. (2024). Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of 

incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 

74(3), 229–263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834 

[21] Mackay, J. (2006). The Cancer Atlas. American Cancer Society. 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


