本文的研究目的為分析台灣菸品消費的特性。本文選擇採取分量迴歸法作為研究方法，探討在0.05、0.2、0.4、0.6、0.8和0.95的菸品消費分量下，吸菸家戶的菸品消費特性效果為何。資料來源為行政院家庭收支調查報告。

研究結果指出，在0.2到0.8分量的菸品消費量下，菸品的價格彈性為-0.161到-0.231之間。然而，在0.05分量的菸品消費量下，菸品的價格彈性為-0.363，而當位於0.95分量的菸品消費量時，菸品的消費彈性大幅的提升至-0.701。這代表著提高菸品稅或是菸品健康福利捐的政策是可以有效減少吸菸行為的。

更近一步探討，在0.95分量的菸品消費下，菸品的消費彈性大幅的提升至-0.701，對於此現象可能的解釋為，對於較高菸品消費量的家戶大部分為吸菸成癮者，當價格上漲時，消費者會選擇改變吸菸習慣例如戒菸或購買較便宜的香菸。

而值得一提的是，對於吸菸成癮的消費者而言，也存在一定機率會選擇購買非法的走私香菸，而走私香菸不但無法增加我國菸品稅收收入，也無法達成抑制我國吸菸率的政策目標。因此，政府在推動菸品控管政策時，須將菸品消費者的消費特性列入考量，同時也必須加強查緝非法菸品走私的行為，才能更有效達成政策目標。

The research purpose of the paper was to analyze the characteristics of cigarette consumptions in Taiwan. The paper had adopted quantile regression as research method to discuss the effect of smoking households’ consumption characteristics to the cigarette consumptions in Taiwan at 0.05, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 0.95 quantile. Data for the research was sourced from the “Report on the Survey of Family Income & Expenditure”, conducted by the Executive Yuan, R.O.C.

The results showed up that the price elasticities of cigarettes were estimated about -0.161 to -0.231 from 0.2 to 0.8 quantile of cigarettes consumption. However, the price elasticity of cigarettes was -0.363 in 0.05 quantile and raised significantly to -0.701 in 0.95 quantile. Indicating the policy of implementing cigarette tax or “Health and Welfare Surcharge on Tobacco Products” would decrease the smoking behavior effectively.

Furthermore, the price elasticity changed to -0.701 in 0.95 quantile, a possible explanation for this phenomenon was that households with higher cigarette consumption were highly addicted to smoking, when the cigarette price increased, they would try to change smoking habit such as buying cheaper cigarettes or quit smoking.

However, it is worth noticed that there existed risks of price sensitive smokers seek out measures to purchase less expensive cigarettes when they were highly relied on cigarettes, such as smuggled cigarettes, which may decrease future cessation efforts, and also lose the tax revenue from cigarette excise tax. Therefore, government should also take the consumption characteristics of smoking households into account and also enhance the prevention of illegal consumption behaviors when implementing the tobacco control policy.

Koenker and Bassett（1978）, “Regression Quantile,” Econometrica, 46（1）,33-50.
Lin et al.（2007）, “Tobacco Smoke, Indoor Air Pollution and Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, PLoS Medicine, 4, 1, e20, 173-189.
Gandini et al.（2008）, “Tobacco Smoking and Cancer: A Meta-Analysis”, Int.J.Cancer, 122, 155-164.
Sun et al.（2004）, “Smoking and Cancer Risk in Korean Men and Women”. Cancer Causes and Control, 15, 341-348.
TR’EDANIEL et al.（1997）, “Tobacco Smoking and Gastric Cancer: Review and Meta-Analysis”, Int.J.Cancer, 72, 565-573.
Merriman et al.（2000）, “How Big is the Worldwide Cigarette-Smuggling Problem?” Tobacco Control in Developing Countries, 365-392.
International Tax and Investment Center and Oxford Economics (2014), Asia-14: Illicit Tobacco Indicator 2013.
John（2008）, “Price Elasticity Estimates for Tobacco Products in India”, Health Policy and Planning, 23: 200-209.
Kostova et al.（2010）, “Price and Cigarette Demand: Evidence from Youth Tobacco Use in Developing Countries”, NBER Working Paper, No.15781.
Townsend et al.（1994）, “Cigarette Smoking by Socioeconomic Group, Sex, and Age: Effects of Price, Income, and Health Publicity.” BMJ Clinical Research, 309, 923-927.
Lee et al.（2003）, “Area Deprivation, Socioeconomic Status, and Smoking Behavior among male Adults in Taiwan”, Taiwan Journal of Public Health, 22（1）: 10-16.
Jamal et al.（2013）, “Current Cigarette Smoking among Adults-United States, 2005-2013”, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63, 47, 1108-1112.
Birmpili et al.（2012）, “Gender and Socio-economic Differences in Daily Smoking and Smoking Cessation Among Adult Residents in a Greek Rural Area.”, Open Cardiovascular Medical Journal, 6:15-21.
Hyland et al.（2005）, “Higher Cigarette Prices Influence Cigarette Purchase Patterns”, Tobacco Control, 14:86-92.