Final answer:
Companies used aggressive marketing and misinformation to manipulate people into buying cigarettes by reshaping their image, making them seem masculine and denying health risks. Taxes helped to generate revenue but did not drastically cut down consumption due to the inelastic demand for tobacco products, though anti-smoking campaigns did help reduce usage among certain groups, particularly youth.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the past, companies have manipulated people into buying cigarette products through various marketing strategies and misinformation campaigns. James Duke, for instance, utilized aggressive marketing to reshape the image of cigarettes from being seen as effeminate to a symbol of masculinity, targeting soldiers and blue-collar workers with his messaging and providing free samples. Additionally, Big Tobacco companies historically denied the harmful effects and addictiveness of nicotine to protect their profits, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
To combat the inelastic demand for tobacco, sin taxes were introduced. These were effective in generating revenue for states but did not significantly reduce consumption among current users of tobacco products. However, public programs and anti-smoking campaigns have shown some success in decreasing cigarette use, particularly among youth whose smoking habits are more price-sensitive than adults.
Overall, the efforts to influence consumer behavior involved manipulating perceptions of cigarettes, denying health risks, and combating stigmatization associated with smoking. These tactics were employed in a time where the dangers of smoking were known, yet continuously downplayed by those profiting from tobacco sales.