Anti-vaping policy leads to increase in smoking rates

[DrMA]

Taiwan, which bans ecigs, is one of the few placed in the world reporting increases in smoking rates. Compare to US stats, where smoking has hit record lows faster than ever across the board thanks to vaping having little or no regulation.

Taiwan's smoking rate rises to 17.1% in 2015 | Society | FOCUS TAIWAN - CNA ENGLISH NEWS

 

[puffon]

Just what Big tobacco like to see..........

 

[Lessifer]

While I agree that the rise in smoking is likely related to the unavailability of e-cigs, we have to be careful not to fall into the "correlation = causality" trap.

ETA: perfect chance for an experiment though, they could change nothing other than allowing the sale and use of e-cigs, and see what happens.

 

[AndriaD]

Haven't we been saying all along that any decrease in the availability of e-cigs would cause smoking rates to go back up? Well, there it is. I bet desk murderers everywhere are cheering.

Andria

 

[zoiDman]

I wonder what the "Margin of Error" is for the 17.1% Statistic?

I also wonder if there are Any Other Non-vape related factors which might lead to a Small Percentage increase?

 

[Mazinny]

I wonder what the "Margin of Error" is for the 17.1% Statistic?

I also wonder if there are Any Other Non-Vape related factors which might lead to a Small Percentage increase?

Yeah it seems likely that some other factor may be involved, other than the legal status of e-cigarettes ( which apparently hasn't changed since 2009 ). The article stated that this was the first year on year increase in seven years.

Blaming e-cig laws for the increase to 17.1 % from 16.4 % ( 2014 to 2015 ), isn't any different than crediting e-cig laws for the decrease in smoking rates from 18 % to 16.4 % ( 2013 to 2014 ).

 

[zoiDman]

Yeah it seems likely that some other factor may be involved, other than the legal status of e-cigarettes ( which apparently hasn't changed since 2009 ). The article stated that this was the first year on year increase in seven years.

Blaming e-cig laws for the increase to 17.1 % from 16.4 % ( 2014 to 2015 ), isn't any different than crediting e-cig laws for the decrease in smoking rates from 18 % to 16.4 % ( 2013 to 2014 ).

I hope you Didn't miss the meaning of my Post?

And that is that if someone reads a Statistic which is supposed to be Indicative of a Population, one should ask what is the Margin of Error of the Statistic?

Because it is very Easy for me to Manipulate Numerical Percentages by Relaxing the Margins of Error of a Percentage to suit my Goals.

My Gawd, with all the Slanted things we have seen in the Last 2 Years, I would Hope that when a person is given a "Result" that they then ask what is the Margin of Error or Confidence Interval/Power of the Test or Sample Size or Sample Method Selection or etc, of how the Result was Generated.

Statistics is a Beautiful Tool to Influence Public Opinion with out Actually Lying. Because groups can present All Kinds of Results that play well into what they want someone to Believe. And can Massage the Numbers by not telling you how Accurate a Result is relative to the Data that was Evaluated. And or by Selecting Data that you know will lean towards a Desired Outcome.

People need to Stop Blindly Believing Statistical Results. And Stop being lead around by the Nose by those who may/can use Statistics for what they are Not Designed to do.

 

[DC2]

People need to Stop Blindly Believing Statistical Results. And Stop being lead around by the Nose by those who may/can use Statistics for what they are Not Designed to do.

If I could pick two courses that should be MANDATORY for every high school...
The first would be Logic, and the second would be Statistics.

If everyone learned those to two subjects, the world would be a FAR better place.

 

[rico942]

If I could pick two courses that should be MANDATORY for every high school...
The first would be Logic, and the second would be Statistics.

If everyone learned those to two subjects, the world would be a FAR better place.

I would add Ethics training to that, possibly even a more crucial subject, that focused on actions and behaviors that are morally objectionable to the majority in any advanced culture ...

Such as a campaign to discredit and destroy a new "disruptive technology" with the potential to extend millions of lives, by persons and organizations who stand to profit from the status quo ...

 

[Mazinny]

I hope you Didn't miss the meaning of my Post?

And that is that if someone reads a Statistic which is supposed to be Indicative of a Population, one should ask what is the Margin of Error of the Statistic?

Because it is very Easy for me to Manipulate Numerical Percentages by Relaxing the Margins of Error of a Percentage to suit my Goals.

My Gawd, with all the Slanted things we have seen in the Last 2 Years, I would Hope that when a person is given a "Result" that they then ask what is the Margin of Error or Confidence Interval/Power of the Test or Sample Size or Sample Method Selection or etc, of how the Result was Generated.

Statistics is a Beautiful Tool to Influence Public Opinion with out Actually Lying. Because groups can present All Kinds of Results that play well into what they want someone to Believe. And can Massage the Numbers by not telling you how Accurate a Result is relative to the Data that was Evaluated. And or by Selecting Data that you know will lean towards a Desired Outcome.

People need to Stop Blindly Believing Statistical Results. And Stop being lead around by the Nose by those who may/can use Statistics for what they are Not Designed to do.

No i don't think i missed your point. It was pretty clear. I wasn't commenting on the first sentence of your post though, i was commenting on the second sentence i.e non-vape related factors might have lead to the small increase in smoking rates from 2014 to 2015.

Taiwan apparently implemented strict anti-smoking regulations in Jan 2009, as well as banning the manufacture and importation of e-cigarettes. From 2009 through 2014 smoking rates either went down or stayed steady each year. There was a slight rise from 2014 to 2015 though.

My point was that it seems strange to immediately blame the anti-ecig laws implemented six or seven years ago, for the slight increase in smoking rates in 2015 ( the first increase in seven years ).

I am not claiming that banning e-cigs will not affect smoking rates mind you, i am just saying in this particular instance i don't see any evidence to support that conclusion.

 

[DC2]

I would add Ethics training to that, possibly even a more crucial subject, that focused on actions and behaviors that are morally objectionable to the majority in any advanced culture ...

Such as a campaign to discredit and destroy a new "disruptive technology" with the potential to extend millions of lives, by persons and organizations who stand to profit from the status quo ...

While I totally agree with the idea of teaching Ethics...
I am concerned about HOW exactly Ethics would be taught in this day and age...

The basic principles of Logic and Statistics can not be corrupted through bias or agendas.
Those are subjects that ARE what they ARE.

Ethics? Not so much.
But still, I hear what you're saying.

 

[zoiDman]

...

My point was that it seems strange to immediately blame the anti-ecig laws implemented six or seven years ago, for the slight increase in smoking rates in 2015 ( the first increase in seven years ).

I am not claiming that banning e-cigs will not affect smoking rates mind you, i am just saying in this particular instance i don't see any evidence to support that conclusion.

Very True. And this Ties into what Lessifer mentioned in Post #3 about "correlation = causality".

It also brings up an Interesting Point about when do people Question Statistical Inferences?

It seems that Too Many Times statistical results are Only questioned when the "Results" are not aligned with ones Belief, Agenda and or Cause.

If people like what the Numbers Imply, they tend to Blindly Agree with the way (and the People/Group who present) the Numbers that were Generated. But if the if they Don't Agree with the Result, or they Don't Like/Trust the people who present them, that is when the Statistics are Challenged.

 

[rico942]

While I totally agree with the idea of teaching Ethics...
I am concerned about HOW exactly Ethics would be taught in this day and age...

Sadly, this is a legitimate concern ...

Two years ago, my former employer announced mandatory "ethics training" for all non-salaried employees, but I signed up anyway ...

The "training" was delivered by a senior vice-president, not a professional counselor, and consisted of Powerpoint slides such as "Obey your supervisor at all times", "Be punctual arriving to work", and "Don't steal company property" ...

Nothing about falsifying analysis results, undermining co-workers, or managers altering time sheets as a punitive measure ...

On my way out, I grabbed the pen from the sign-up sheet and took it home ...

 

[AndriaD]

I would add Ethics training to that, possibly even a more crucial subject, that focused on actions and behaviors that are morally objectionable to the majority in any advanced culture ...

Such as a campaign to discredit and destroy a new "disruptive technology" with the potential to extend millions of lives, by persons and organizations who stand to profit from the status quo ...

But ethics and morals are not synonymous -- as you said, "morally objectionable to the majority..." but ethics are those values found WITHIN ONESELF. What I consider right behavior and what others may consider right behavior *may* be very different things -- I see nothing wrong with vaping, for instance, but apparently there are some with puritan morals who see something inherently evil in it. And my own ethics dictate that I don't drink, because it leads to such awful consequences for me -- but morally there is nothing wrong with drinking, in moderation -- and therein lies the key -- I am not capable of drinking in moderation, therefore it would be ethically wrong for me to drink at all.

I don't base my behavior on the morals of other people, but on my own ethics.

Andria

 

[rico942]

I don't base my behavior on the morals of other people, but on my own ethics.

Andria

Good words to live by ...

 

[Lessifer]

No i don't think i missed your point. It was pretty clear. I wasn't commenting on the first sentence of your post though, i was commenting on the second sentence i.e non-vape related factors might have lead to the small increase in smoking rates from 2014 to 2015.

Taiwan apparently implemented strict anti-smoking regulations in Jan 2009, as well as banning the manufacture and importation of e-cigarettes. From 2009 through 2014 smoking rates either went down or stayed steady each year. There was a slight rise from 2014 to 2015 though.

My point was that it seems strange to immediately blame the anti-ecig laws implemented six or seven years ago, for the slight increase in smoking rates in 2015 ( the first increase in seven years ).

I am not claiming that banning e-cigs will not affect smoking rates mind you, i am just saying in this particular instance i don't see any evidence to support that conclusion.

Well, you could say that despite the banning of e-cigs, the smoking rate did not continue its historic decline, which would be true.

A reversal in a trend is significant, but statistics won't tell you anything of the why. That is left up to the interpretation of those making the policies, unfortunately.

 

[nicnik]

unfortunately

Understatement.

 

[Lessifer]

Understatement.

It would not surprise me to see someone blame the increase in smoking rate on vaping's renormalizing smoking...

 

[zoiDman]

It would not surprise me to see someone blame the increase in smoking rate on vaping's renormalizing smoking...

But, But, Lessifer... the Numbers Support My Claim.

 

[Kent C]

But ethics and morals are not synonymous -- as you said, "morally objectionable to the majority..." but ethics are those values found WITHIN ONESELF.

I think they're synonymous. Both are defined as a basic system of values and principles of conduct, that define right and wrong or good and bad. The problem is what different people consider 'right' and 'wrong'. So you'll have 'puritan ethics/morals' and your ethics/morals and there will be what some people might call a 'majority ethics/morals' but that would be a lot harder to define since within the majority it could vary widely.