Sinclair Davidson, March 27, 2014 (based on tobacco industry claims regarding sales):
What a policy disaster! The situation of the ground must be even worse. These figures only include legal tobacco. So once we add on the illegal stuff – including the sophisticated counterfeiters I suspect tobacco consumption has increased substantially above the 0.3 per cent increase.Sinclair Davidson, July 17, 2014 (based on national survey results of actual use of tobacco):
The proportion of daily smokers has fallen – smoking in Australia is in long-term decline and has been so since the 1960s.
Furthermore, putting on a brave face that there must be something in the survey results that he can cling to:
What is problematic for the nanny staters is the increase in tobacco consumption by young women. Despite media reports suggesting that “young people” are smoking less, the data do not support inference when looking at women aged 18 – 29.If I understand the table he posts correctly, the figures do show that of young women who smoke, the mean number of cigarettes they smoke per week has increased by between 2 to 3 since 2010. Horrors! The difference in health effects between 77 cigarettes per week and 75 (for that is indeed the type of numbers we are talking about) must be wrecking terrible havoc on those women!
But why would the desperate professor even bother grasping at that when the very same table shows young men's consumption is down between about 11 to 16 per week, depending on the age group? (And I would also note that another table in the survey shows that are slightly less young smoking women than men anyway - by about 2%).
No matter what attempt at desperate spin and piffle you put on the tables, total young people's mean consumption is down significantly - about 10% in the case of 25 to 29 year olds.
What's more, with one tiny exception, the survey confirms the percent of young people smoking at all is down, down, down over time:
Table 3: Tobacco status, people aged 12 years or older, by age, 2001 to 2013 (per cent) | |||||
Smoking status | 2001 | 2004 | 2007 | 2010 | 2013 |
12–17 | |||||
Daily | n.a. | 5.2 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 3.4 |
Occasional(a) | n.a. | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.3 | *1.6 |
Ex-smokers(b) | n.a. | 1.7 | 0.9 | 1.6 | *0.3# |
Never smoked(c) | n.a. | 91.6 | 95.0 | 94.7 | 94.7 |
18–24 | |||||
Daily | 24.0 | 20.2 | 16.5 | 15.7 | 13.4 |
Occasional(a) | 8.1 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 5.1 |
Ex-smokers(b) | 10.2 | 9.5 | 8.3 | 7.3 | 4.7# |
Never smoked(c) | 57.7 | 65.1 | 70.3 | 72.1 | 76.8# |
25–29 | |||||
Daily | 27.0 | 25.8 | 25.8 | 19.3 | 16.1# |
Occasional(a) | 6.0 | 6.5 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.5 |
Ex-smokers(b) | 17.5 | 16.6 | 16.6 | 14.8 | 15.1 |
Never smoked(c) | 49.5 | 51.1 | 51.8 | 60.1 | 63.3 |
Hey - daily smokers in the 12 to 17 year group has apparently gone up nearly 1 per cent! Horrors again - the most immature group of people surveyed just might have had no reaction (yet) to plain packaging.
Of course, a reasonable person might suspect that they will always be some small proportion of young teenagers who will be risk taking and smoke, but if that percentage stays at anything around 3%, it's hardly going to matter as the goal is to get total smoking below 10%.
Obviously, what is important is the percent of young people who are legally able to buy tobacco and can afford it who smoke The most encouraging thing of all is the number of "never smoked" by age of 24 - now up to nearly 77% and showing no sign of stopping.
The survey also contains no joy for the prematurely hyperbolic Professor's claim that illegal tobacco use is probably soaring. I'm having trouble cutting and pasting that table, but it shows unbranded tobacco use going down - and quite a lot over time. (The notes do indicate some caution is warranted due to methodological matters.) Now whether this just means "chop chop" - or illegally imported but unbranded tobacco - I'm not sure. But I would guess that illegal but branded cigarettes are counted in the normal smoking figures in the survey anyway.
Here's the thing - not only Sinclair Davidson, but the entire group of Catallaxy and The Australian's "free market" economists and journalists leapt on dubious figures put out by an industry with a reputation for deception on a campaign to stop plain packaging spreading, and made grandiose claims about the policy being a public health "disaster".
Good quality survey evidence shows their gullibility and "ideology over quality evidence" approach to just about every damn thing.
UPDATE: Heh. The desperation continues.
The apparent .9% rise in 12 to 17 year olds smoking is latched onto by Sinclair as evidence of the plain packaging not being a success.
Predictable; yet another case of (wilfully) not being able to see the wood for the trees.
too right. They have never cared for evidence.
ReplyDeleteThey are simply ideologues. The mirror image of the 1950s Communists.
Sinclair doesn't know about Z tests.
ReplyDeleteWhy am I not surprised.
The young are price conscious, so of course they will react to cig companies slashing prices under plain packaging. Yet more denialism from the scientifically illiterate right.
ReplyDelete