Anti-vaping policy leads to increase in smoking rates

[Mazinny]

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

I mean, one could say anything really, but is it supported by the evidence submitted ? I maintain that in this case it isn't. The anti-vaping policies were implemented in 2009, followed by six years of decline in smoking rates. In the seventh year there was a slight reversal of the trend. Is it logical to blame the 2009 ban for the 2015 increase in smoking rates, while not commenting on the previous six years of decline in smoking rates ? What do you reckon the reaction in this forum would have been, if some groups were to give credit for the decline in smoking rates in Taiwan from 2009 to 2014, solely to the anti vaping regulations implemented in 2009 ? As flawed as that claim would have been, it still would have made more sense than the claims of the op ( absent any evidence not provided ).

It could very possibly be true that " anti vaping policies will lead to an increase in smoking rates " if there is no change in other factors that could also impact smoking rates. For example, if the strict anti-smoking regulations in 2009 were accompanied with the the promotion of vaping as a tool in THR, the drop in smoking rates could have been even more dramatic, but unfortunately we won't know.

 

[Lessifer]

I mean, one could say anything really, but is it supported by the evidence submitted ? I maintain that in this case it isn't. The anti-vaping policies were implemented in 2009, followed by six years of decline in smoking rates. In the seventh year there was a slight reversal of the trend. Is it logical to blame the 2009 ban for the 2015 increase in smoking rates, while not commenting on the previous six years of decline in smoking rates ? What do you reckon the reaction in this forum would have been, if some groups were to give credit for the decline in smoking rates in Taiwan from 2009 to 2014, solely to the anti vaping regulations implemented in 2009 ? As flawed as that claim would have been, it still would have made more sense than the claims of the op ( absent any evidence not provided ).

It could very possibly be true that " anti vaping policies will lead to an increase in smoking rates " if there is no change in other factors that could also impact smoking rates. For example, if the strict anti-smoking regulations in 2009 were accompanied with the the promotion of vaping as a tool in THR, the drop in smoking rates could have been even more dramatic, but unfortunately we won't know.

"The smoking rate did not continue its historic decline" is what is supported by the statistics provided, anything else is subjective interpretation. That's the point, and that is why data like this is not really useful for much of anything. The rates don't really tell you anything, especially taken at a population level, because the number of influencing variables is immense.

 

[zoiDman]

Some would consider a Change of less than 1 Basis Point to be Statistically Insignificant.

But saying that Something is "Unchanged" doesn't support much of a Position. Either For or Against.

 

[Mazinny]

"The smoking rate did not continue its historic decline" is what is supported by the statistics provided, anything else is subjective interpretation. That's the point, and that is why data like this is not really useful for much of anything. The rates don't really tell you anything, especially taken at a population level, because the number of influencing variables is immense.

I'm not quite sure what your first sentence means, but i don't disagree with the rest of your post. Not really important either way, it's clear to me that the op's conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided, the rest is all speculation.

 

[Lessifer]

I'm not quite sure what your first sentence means, but i don't disagree with the rest of your post. Not really important either way, it's clear to me that the op's conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided, the rest is all speculation.

The only thing that the numbers tell us in the OP is that the smoking rate did not continue to go down, but instead went slightly up. There is no way to determine what caused it without analyzing a LOT more data, and even then it would still be speculation.

However, if you believe that vaping will "renormalize" smoking, a smoking rate increase in a place that does not allow vaping would appear to go against that. Just as a continued decline in the smoking rate in the US, despite the relatively unregulated vapor market, appears to contradict that same idea. That would all be interpretation and speculation though.

 

[Mazinny]

The only thing that the numbers tell us in the OP is that the smoking rate did not continue to go down, but instead went slightly up. There is no way to determine what caused it without analyzing a LOT more data, and even then it would still be speculation.

However, if you believe that vaping will "renormalize" smoking, a smoking rate increase in a place that does not allow vaping would appear to go against that. Just as a continued decline in the smoking rate in the US, despite the relatively unregulated vapor market, appears to contradict that same idea. That would all be interpretation and speculation though.

I don't know what your second paragraph has to do with any thing, no one in this thread has made that argument. It appears you agree with me though, that the op's conclusion is not supported by the evidence submitted ( my main point ) , but for some strange reason instead of saying just that, you are quoting my posts to emphasize the point that the six year decline in smoking rates reversed slightly in year seven !? I don't disagree, there was a slight reversal in the trend.

You can have the last word though, this is my last post in this thread.

 

[sofarsogood]

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 ...

If someone is going to be ethical in the way they conduct their lives it forms young, at home. The best thing elders can do to promote it is by minimizing reasons to be fearful (lying is a symptom of fear). Ethics and morals are man made codes of conduct. We can disagree about what is moral or ethical. It's all reletive.

The other kind of codes of conduct are the commands of god, which are absolute and don't depend on right and wrong or good and bad. God commands, that's it. (And that's why religious fanatics are so dangerous. There can't be modern civilization unless there can be man made codes of conduct. Islamists would disagree with that.)

To get their way public health officials typically try to create the appearance that their opinions deserve the same mindless acceptance as if god commanded it. The world would be a safer better place if Islamic extreemists and public health official didn't exist.

 

[Lessifer]

I don't know what your second paragraph has to do with any thing, no one in this thread has made that argument. It appears you agree with me though, that the op's conclusion is not supported by the evidence submitted ( my main point ) , but for some strange reason instead of saying just that, you are quoting my posts to emphasize the point that the six year decline in smoking rates reversed slightly in year seven !? I don't disagree, there was a slight reversal in the trend.

You can have the last word though, this is my last post in this thread.

I'm quoting your posts to let you know that I'm discussing with you, not really refuting anything that you're saying, just continuing the conversation.

I was merely pointing out that, like zoidman, and you, and I have said, the numbers say one very specific thing. Interpretations will vary wildly, and we should recognize that none of them are supported by this particular set of numbers.

I'm not always arguing against you, sometimes I'm just expanding a thought.

 

[Kent C]

Ethics and morals are man made codes of conduct. We can disagree about what is moral or ethical. It's all reletive.

Is unprovoked killing relative? How about stealing? Enslaving another?

 

[AndriaD]

If someone is going to be ethical in the way they conduct their lives it forms young, at home.

That is often true, but not necessarily. What I learned at home is that a "white lie" is ok. From my ex, I learned that NO lie is EVER ok, and that if you want to be respected, you must first respect yourself enough to NEVER lie about anything, ever, not even (or maybe most especially!) to yourself. My mother continues to think of my ex as the weirdest human on the planet, and in some ways I agree with her, and have often found my ex quite intolerable (that's why he's my ex!) but in many ways, my respect for him continues unabated, because he taught me how to be a mensch, as he put it. And why it's necessary to be a mensch if you want a life worth living.

Andria

 

[rico942]

Mensch is a term that I knew (like so many others) only in context, that it had positive connotations, but could not have given a clear definition ...

So I looked it up, and now I'm a little smarter ...

In the Wiki definition of mensch, I also learned that its a "loanword", a word borrowed from one language to another, in this case from Yiddish to English ...

I am SO much smarter now than I was yesterday ...

Gotta come here more often !

 

[Racehorse]

Compare to US stats, where smoking has hit record lows faster than ever across the board thanks to vaping having little or no regulation.

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?

i.e., Gallup Polls in 1999 and 2006 reported the lowest % in 60 years when they asked people if they smoked a cigarette in the past week. 2006 was a huge record low of smoking, actually.

for instance, this one in 1997 explains why decreasing % in US but increasing elsewhere:
Smoking Is Declining In The U.s. In The Developing World, It's Picking Up Steam. Despite Tough Laws, Firms Are Targeting Teens. Looking Overseas For A Thriving Future

Seems like a number of things has caused the decline in US and tobacco companies are marketing strongly to other countries as a result too?

 

[Racehorse]

wrong topic area

 

[Lessifer]

Four Reasons NOT to Stealth Vape on a Plane

I think Halo ecigs covered the matter nicely....including the possibility of a $25,000 fine if things go really badly.....

I might be missing something but, what does this have to do with anti vaping policies and smoking rates?

 

[Racehorse]

Posted in wrong topic. I've removed it.

but hey, it's a good read anyway.

Ever have one "escape" from ya like this? I was WONDERING why it didn't post ......turns out it did.....just not where i meant it to.

 

[Lessifer]

Posted in wrong topic. I've removed it.

but hey, it's a good read anyway.

Ever have one "escape" from ya like this? I was WONDERING why it didn't post ......turns out it did.....just not where i meant it to.

That's what I thought, but just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a connection somewhere.

 

[Kent C]

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

 

[zoiDman]

LOL.

I remember an Undergrad saying something Very Similar. And I said [paraphrased] ... "Yeah, I reviewed 1,000,001 Data Points. But I threw 1 out."

 

[bobwho77]

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

Excellent explanation of the difference

 

[AndriaD]

Excellent explanation of the difference

Thank you; I've always seen a vast difference between morals and ethics, but apparently many others don't see that. I am actually completely amoral, in that most of the things that "society" seems to find right and wrong are completely puzzling if not downright ridiculous to me. But I've striven for many years to develop and apply my own very high standards of ethics -- to myself. To me, "morals" are just another control-freak game, a way of judging others and finding fault, and I want no part of it. But many people would probably be puzzled at my standards of ethical behavior.

Andria