Anti-vaping policy leads to increase in smoking rates

[DrMA]

I've read many studies for over a decade that smoking rates have dropped to new lows in the US, and this is the first time I've seen it attributed SPECIFICALLY to just vaping?

Here you go @Racehorse. This explains in great detail how vaping is THE ONE factor driving youth smoking down at an accelerated rate and how antivaping policies are causing smoking rates to go up. Real data from US:
YSPH study finds Banning E-Cigarette Sales to Minors Spurs Conventional Smoking | Yale School of Medicine

You seem to be forgetting that 50 years of antismoker hate, discrimination & fraud left the smoking population largely unchanged. Classical Tobacco ConTrol tactics have been a miserable and expensive failure despite official figures attempting to bury the truth by using "creative" surveys & stats. Before vaping took off, there's been more than a decade of stagnation in smoking rates, steadily hovering around the 20% mark. Following rapid growth of vaping use (starting ca. 2007 in US) smoking rates have started falling at a rate not seen since that first 1965 SGR hit the press and the rate of decrease in smoking prevalence has been accelerating ever since, even more so for youth.

tl;dr - more of the same failed TC policies are useless & abusive. Yes, vaping is the only thing that has any chance of driving smoking lower than it is now.

 

[zoiDman]

"Using data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the research finds that state bans on e-cigarette sales to minors yield a 0.9 percentage point increase in rates of recent conventional cigarette use by 12 to 17 year olds, relative to states without these bans."

YSPH study finds Banning E-Cigarette Sales to Minors Spurs Conventional Smoking | Yale School of Medicine

So what was the "Margin of Error" for this 0.9% Increase result?

+/- 1% ?

 

[zoiDman]

Double Post.

 

[ruet]

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.

You know, I used to adhere to this rule in everything I do. I have, over time, however come to the conclusion that it is a losing methodology. The other side will jump on "correlation = causality" every time and no amount of facts can overcome the misinformation until it's too late. Fight fire with fire I say.

 

[Lessifer]

You know, I used to adhere to this rule in everything I do. I have, over time, however come to the conclusion that it is a losing methodology. The other side will jump on "correlation = causality" every time and no amount of facts can overcome the misinformation until it's too late. Fight fire with fire I say.

I understand, unfortunately, if you don't fight the idea that correlation = causality, it can easily be used against you. Especially when the same data set can be shown to say two wildly different things when you adjust the sample.

 

[ruet]

I understand, unfortunately, if you don't fight the idea that correlation = causality, it can easily be used against you.

It already is with no sign of abatement.