Smoking Statistics

[Goober]

And do you want to talk about how you know about this Goober?:lol:

As they say what happens in the closet, stays in the closet.:smile:

 

[PoliticalNick]

As far as tobacco, I do think use in youths is declining but taxes increasing the price of a pack of cigarettes is a small part of the equation. I think the bigger influences are that society, as a whole, no longer holds smoking in a positive light, as was the case in past generations, and hand in hand with goes the education of the long term effects: the increased frequency of lung diseases, heart disease and cancerm etc. Another contributing factor, especially in youth, is the cosmetic effects: the stink of cigarette smoke is unappealing to most, it yellows teeth, and the "ashtray taste" of kissing a smoker.

I have to agree with this as the major cause for any decrease in youth smokers. My sons don't smoke and none of their friends do either. It is looked upon as gross and disgusting and bad for your health. It is not the glamorous and cool thing to do anymore and the attitude of most young people towards it shows this.

I would have to surmise from my own experience that it is the general attitude towards smoking far more than any increase in taxes that account for significant drops in the amount of youth smokers.

 

[Tonington]

Well I guess it depends on how the government is gathering those statistics. If it is based in any way on cigarette tax collection it's not exactly a honest statistic. For lack of a better word.

I don't know what would be more objective, I just question whether the present system is as effective as the politicians would have us believe.

It's survey data. On top of government collected statistics there is epidemiological studies of risk factors and prevalence. In provinces where the tobacco tax rate drops, the prevalence is higher compared to provinces where the tax rate is not dropped:
The effect of tobacco tax cuts on cigarette smoking in Canada
ScienceDirect - American Journal of Preventive Medicine : The Impact of Tobacco Tax Cuts on Smoking Initiation Among Canadian Young Adults

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

ConclusionsYoung adults are sensitive to cigarette prices. Reductions in cigarette prices will lead to increased smoking initiation among this group. Tobacco taxation should be an effective strategy to reduce smoking initiation among young adults.

Most of the kids I see smoking aren't puffing on Players or Export. They're smoking Rez cigarettes.

I won't dismiss the fact that there are some unregulated tobacco producers. But the majority are regulated. Including First Nations.

Cheap alcohol is easily attained in certain areas.

The regulated Native smokes are also much cheaper no?

 

[Tonington]

Most of the kids I see smoking aren't puffing on Players or Export. They're smoking Rez cigarettes.

Ok...what about the other 99.9999% of Canadian youth who smoke? If you're going to go back from large survey data to anecdotes about what you see, and what your brain perceives as significant, then we're going to need to chat about objectivity versus subjectivity.

Smoking statistics are clear. Price increases lead to reduced prevalence. Price decreases lead to increased prevalence. There's a clear association between the price of a good (most goods), and consumer behaviour. For some goods more so than others.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Ok...what about the other 99.9999% of Canadian youth who smoke? If you're going to go back from large survey data to anecdotes about what you see, and what your brain perceives as significant, then we're going to need to chat about objectivity versus subjectivity.

Smoking statistics are clear. Price increases lead to reduced prevalence. Price decreases lead to increased prevalence. There's a clear association between the price of a good (most goods), and consumer behaviour. For some goods more so than others.

Sounds to me like you are buying the whole thing hook line and sinker. If there is a study that links all drug use to marijuana as a gateway drug are you going to look at that study objectively or subjectively?

We are being presented with studies, but they are not including the number of youth moving from buying taxed cigarettes to rez cigarettes. And that doesn't just go for youth a lot of adults buy the cheap Rez smokes. You need to stop looking at the question I am raising as an attack on your ideology regarding using taxes to change peoples habits.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Ok...what about the other 99.9999% of Canadian youth who smoke? If you're going to go back from large survey data to anecdotes about what you see, and what your brain perceives as significant, then we're going to need to chat about objectivity versus subjectivity.

Smoking statistics are clear. Price increases lead to reduced prevalence. Price decreases lead to increased prevalence. There's a clear association between the price of a good (most goods), and consumer behaviour. For some goods more so than others.

RCS may have a valid observation (anecdotally) local to his circle of observation.

Outside of Ontario & (maybe) Quebec (call it the tobacco belt), cheap rez smokes
aren't "that" big of an issue I believe. Those two provinces do make up about 1/2 the
population of the country though.

Out here (SK) sales are supposedly limited now to something like 3 cartons/week/person
for Rez smokes tax free....for personal use, not for resale....and there was a stink raised
about that at the time but it has faded away. 3 cartons/week is just over 3 packs/day for
someone's personal use....and that sounds like lots for one set of lungs to deal with. That
works out to something like a smoke every 11 minutes, 16hrs/day (assuming someone
sleeps), everyday. Anyway, it keeps one person from wholesaling tax-free smokes out the
backdoor out here, or is an attempt to prevent that. I'm assuming there are rules/laws like
that elsewhere too....

 

[Tonington]

Sounds to me like you are buying the whole thing hook line and sinker.

Buying what whole thing? Consumers respond to price. That's a pretty robust finding. The association between smoking prevalence and price crosses demographics, borders, and cultures. So if the evidence is strong, I guess you could say I tend to value that information...

If there is a study that links all drug use to marijuana as a gateway drug are you going to look at that study objectively or subjectively?

If? I'd read the study like I read any other...

We are being presented with studies, but they are not including the number of youth moving from buying taxed cigarettes to rez cigarettes.

So? Prevalence isn't brand specific. If prevalence goes down, that covers "rez" smokes, tailor mades, rolled smokes, etc. It means that fewer people are smoking.

And that doesn't just go for youth a lot of adults buy the cheap Rez smokes. You need to stop looking at the question I am raising as an attack on your ideology regarding using taxes to change peoples habits.

Attack on what ideology? I have no idea what you're trying to turn this into...I'm questioning your characterization of subjective stats and your reliance on small sample sizes...you didn't even know how the stats were collected, and you were talking about bias, but maybe without realizing it you're not controlling your own bias by interpreting large scale results against your smaller scope.

RCS may have a valid observation (anecdotally) local to his circle of observation.

Yes, but tobacco regulations affect the entire population, and more than that the psychology of our brains doesn't make it easy for us to control our own biases in a situation like this. That's the whole point of sampling methodology in all sciences, to minimize the bias that exists.

Watch the video here about the dangers of anecdotal 'evidence':
Video on anecdotal evidence « Evidence Based Thought