To the Editor The conclusion that “large cigarette tax increases may be a strategy that can be used to help reduce smoking among youths”¹ by Guindon et al deserved comment. First, the goals of tax increases are to increase benefits, the reduction of smoking prevalence being only an ancillary result. In Australia, a most proactive country against tobacco (2016 smoking prevalence: 15%), revenue from taxes increased from A$8.0 million in 2001 to A$10.4 million in 2016 ($5.45 million to $7.09 million US dollars).² In France, governments shared profits with the industry: since 2005, there have been no relevant increase in taxes (always less than 6%, a level inadequate to decrease sales in high-income countries) and small increases in industrial price until March 2017 (15% increase in price targeting roll-your-own tobacco plus a ban on low-price packs, which represented 40% of sales). This did not preclude the agency Public Health France from overlooking this measure and claiming that “increased reimbursement for nicotine substitutes, plain packaging, month without tobacco caused a decrease in smoking prevalence (from 38.8% in 2016 to 34.0% in 2017 for the lowest income and 49.7% to 43.5% for the unemployed).”³ Coincidentally, experts have been enduringly calling to raise prices to €20 in 2020 ($22.16), but the new government only promised €10 ($11.08). The Chilean case seems between France and Australia.¹

致编辑Guindon 等人的结论是“大幅增加香烟税可能是一种有助于减少青少年吸烟的策略” ^{1值得评论。}首先，增税的目标是增加福利，减少吸烟率只是一个辅助结果。在反对烟草最积极主动的国家澳大利亚（2016 年吸烟率：15%），税收收入从 2001 年的 800 万澳元增加到 2016 年的 1040 万澳元（545 万美元到 709 万美元）。²在法国，政府与工业共享利润：自 2005 年以来，税收没有出现相关增长（始终低于 6%，这一水平不足以减少高收入国家的销售额），工业价格小幅上涨直到 2017 年 3 月（自己卷烟的目标价格提高 15%，加上禁止低价包装，占销售额的 40%）。这并不妨碍法国公共卫生机构忽视这一措施，并声称“增加对尼古丁替代品、平装、不吸烟的月份的报销导致吸烟率下降（从 2016 年的 38.8% 降至 2017 年的 34.0%，最低收入人群）失业者为 49.7% 至 43.5%）。” ³巧合的是，专家们一直呼吁在 2020 年将价格提高到 20 欧元（22.16 美元），但新政府只承诺 10 欧元（11.08 美元）。智利的案例似乎在法国和澳大利亚之间。¹