Airplane Peanut Thrower Arrested!! (that just happened to be using an ecig)

[Uncle Willie]

My point is more or less that this data means nothing unless it excludes everyone under the age of 30 (17 years of age + 13 years of the study), it excludes data from both sets (1994 and 2010) of anyone who has died in this period, and there are no participants of the survey who were not smoking 13 years ago but do now.

The data is based on total adult smokers (over 18) from 1997 - 2010 .. if population increase and other factors were calculated into the data, the percentage of those that have quit within that timeframe would actually increase .. IE .. there are more over 18 people in the population at large today than there was in 1997 .. example == 20% of 100 in 1997 == 20 .. flash to 20% of 150 in 2010 == 37.5 .. .. then, using my earlier calculation as a basis ==

The calculation is as follows .. 37.5 minus 20 == 17.5 == ... 17.5 is then divided by the original 37.5 === 46.6% ..

My point remains .. the analog smokers are declining .. I don't think we can dispute that .. and, as I mentioned, this is counter intuitive to the theory that Government wants people to smoke in order to make money from it .. whether that be National or State Government ... it has been widely proven that the health cost to society at large far outweigh the revenue collected ... how can we dispute that .. ?? This idea of a massive Governmental conspiracy just does not hold any water at all ..

It ranks up there with Roswell, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc etc etc ..

 

[Uncle Willie]

This is exactly the issue with analyzing statistics. You can massage the conclusions to say whatever you want. it is not the numbers that lie, it is the people that interpret them.

When one source of data is available, it's easy to manipulate .. when multiple sources of data indicate very similar information from different sources, manipulation would then suggest all those sources are in league .. the statistics of that being possible in a free society are very minute .. as in infinitesimal ..

 

[oldsoldier]

Not conspiracy theory, just pointing out that statistical interpretations can be massaged to fit an agenda. We already know that our government has been caught lying in the past. Heads of government agencies have been known to push their own interpretations and overstep the boundaries of their jurisdiction- that doesn't necessarily mean it is a conspiracy. Just a bad choice of leadership.

Example: J. Edgar Hoover
example that applies to vaping: FDA massaging data and studies to attempt ban of ecigs, then failing
another example: operation gunrunner (ATF)

Statistics are a tool that can be misused. Solid scientific data is harder to dispute, unless you can attack the science as being unsound.

 

[Tendril]

if population increase and other factors were calculated into the data, the percentage of those that have quit within that timeframe would actually increase .. IE .. there are more over 18 people in the population at large today than there was in 1997 .. example == 20% of 100 in 1997 == 20 .. flash to 20% of 150 in 2010 == 37.5 .. .. then, using my earlier calculation as a basis ==

The calculation is as follows .. 37.5 minus 20 == 17.5 == ... 17.5 is then divided by the original 37.5 === 46.6% ..

My point remains .. the analog smokers are declining ..

I don't really follow any of that. Can you read it again and give a more clear and complete answer? FWIW I've taken several statistics and economics classes in college. And yes, the idea of excise tax to discourage use harmful to the public good is a pretty fundamental concept - but no model fits every situation

 

[Uncle Willie]

Not conspiracy theory, just pointing out that statistical interpretations can be massaged to fit an agenda. We already know that our government has been caught lying in the past. Heads of government agencies have been known to push their own interpretations and overstep the boundaries of their jurisdiction- that doesn't necessarily mean it is a conspiracy. Just a bad choice of leadership.

Example: J. Edgar Hoover
example that applies to vaping: FDA massaging data and studies to attempt ban of ecigs, then failing
another example: operation gunrunner (ATF)

Statistics are a tool that can be misused. Solid scientific data is harder to dispute, unless you can attack the science as being unsound.

I'm with you 100% .. my personal belief is (I'm not a young man, BTW) .. that in the era we live in, those type manipulations .. which I know still take place .. are much harder to sweep under the public rug than they were in the pre-Internet age ..

And I like to think the expansions of freedom in Egypt and other countries are also a direct result .. (way, way off topic, I know .. and sorry) ..

 

[Uncle Willie]

I don't really follow any of that. Can you read it again and give a more clear and complete answer? FWIW I've taken several statistics and economics classes in college. And yes, the idea of excise tax to discourage use harmful to the public good is a pretty fundamental concept - but no model fits every situation

If you go back to my original post regarding smoking decline in the US, I'm simply using an ammended example of that equation in the post to illustrate what population growth factored in would do ..

It's probably irrelevant anyway .. my point is simply that Uncle Sam does not have a hidden agenda to in fact, keep folks on analog cigs .. and I used the decline stats as a point of reference .. others on the forum are apparently convinced Big Government is as much to blame in it's greed for taxation as Big tobacco is to blame for it's greed for cig profit ..

The war on smoking that has been ongoing for many years is evidence that at least Uncle Sam wants us to quit .. IMO ..

 

[want to quit]

Thanks for the change oldsoldier

 

[oldsoldier]

YW, but it was UntamedRose that gets the credit I stepped afk for a few moments.

 

[want to quit]

oh well in that case thank you for the report info and thank untamedrose for changing the title.

 

[Puffadder]

The data is based on total adult smokers (over 18) from 1997 - 2010 .. if population increase and other factors were calculated into the data, the percentage of those that have quit within that timeframe would actually increase .. IE .. there are more over 18 people in the population at large today than there was in 1997 .. example == 20% of 100 in 1997 == 20 .. flash to 20% of 150 in 2010 == 37.5 .. .. then, using my earlier calculation as a basis ==

The calculation is as follows .. 37.5 minus 20 == 17.5 == ... 17.5 is then divided by the original 37.5 === 46.6% ..

My point remains .. the analog smokers are declining .. I don't think we can dispute that .. and, as I mentioned, this is counter intuitive to the theory that Government wants people to smoke in order to make money from it .. whether that be National or State Government ... it has been widely proven that the health cost to society at large far outweigh the revenue collected ... how can we dispute that .. ?? This idea of a massive Governmental conspiracy just does not hold any water at all ..

It ranks up there with Roswell, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc etc etc ..

That is some pretty fuzzy math in both this and your original post. Lets start with

example == 20% of 100 in 1997 == 20 .. flash to 20% of 150 in 2010 == 37.5 .. .

I'm not even sure exactly what these numbers mean but assuming 100 and 150 are representing the total population than what you are showing is an increase in the number of smokers although there was a decrease in the percent of population numbers. If there is a population of 100 in 1997 and 25% are smokers than you have a total or 25 smokers. In 2010 the percentage drops to 20% but the population increases to 150 than you have 37.5 smokers.

In other words even though the percentage dropped overall there are more smokers now that there were then which translates to an increase in tax revenue despite a reduction in the percentage of smokers.

now on to your first math lesson. Lets assume the population has remained the same to simplify. So there was a 16.7 percent reduction in cigarette use during that time. Also during those 13 years the federal tax on cigs has increased about 100% but lets simplify and make it 50% to be conservatime. We'll use 1000 to represent the population in both years which means we have 247 seven smokers in 1997 and 205 smokers in 2010. In 1997 the tax is $1 x 247 = $247 in taxes collected. In 2010 the tax has increased to $1.50 x 205 smokers = $307.50 in taxes collected.

Tonight's homework is to determine which amount of revenue the Govt. would prefer.

and with that Professor Puffadder concludes this weeks math lesson.

 

[wdave]

I do take it pretty seriously. I don't want my right to vape banned completely because some people feel they have to behave like children when they hear the word "no." Outrageous behavior isn't going to make vaping accepted and it doesn't paint the rest of us who don't act like that in a good light.

There is no honor in vaping. Just like there is no honor in being a heavy drinker or gambler (unless your a championship poker player)

 

[wdave]

I expect that this person and a lot of people who would act this way don't see e-cigs as a lifetime hobby, but rather a short-term workaround

Those other people are in denial.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Never thought it would make it to CNN .. now it's going to get some attention .. let's all say a hearty thanks to the clown that dug this hole ..

FBI: 'Enraged' flier pelts crew with peanuts - CNN.com

 

[want to quit]

Later in the flight, he began to throw peanuts and pretzels at the flight attendant and towards the flight deck door

it's somewhat so funny yet so sad for the rest of us. I would love to know how old the guy is.