tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post4983504043894151297..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Economics, compliance and Nick HoganChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-58953729704539932852010-06-08T14:35:59.409+01:002010-06-08T14:35:59.409+01:00Thanks for the clarification about that statistic....Thanks for the clarification about that statistic. In effect the claim is that at any given moment (and not a random moment -- people can probably adjust to the presence of an inspector) 98% of facilities (of some sort) are complying. As you note, that is all about the denominator. And, you know, as tempting as it is to attribute this to them intentionally lying, I think that they probably just don't understand basic statistics.<br /><br />On a different point, I neglected to point out (a) that I agree that Michael's article is an excellent piece of work and (b) one of the clearest messages is that the extremists are completely indifferent about the destruction of an important part of the community in pursuit of their goals. <br /><br />VFWs, men's social/service clubs, and the like have a hugely disproportionate share of the violations. These are places where smoking is often as central to the lifestyle as in hookah bars (which do get a cultural exemptions in many jurisdictions -- I guess you are not a "culture" if you are a white middle-America male). While I cannot ever see myself being part of one of these groups, a lot of people I have know are (I grew up in Ohio), and it strikes me as not merely welfare-damaging (which it obviously is), but culturally insensitive to treat these gatherings as some marginal phenomenon that does not even have to be acknowledged in policy analyses.<br /><br />The extremists did not even offer a "price you have to pay" sop about these consequences, at least not that I have ever heard. The use of the false claim "everyone comes out ahead" is further evidence that they believe that if people heard only truth-based arguments in favor of these policies that they would not get everything they want. Lucky for them that they do not have an ethical code that precludes using non-truth-based arguments.Carl V Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01919902852457771666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-41474397700531256402010-06-08T14:11:12.823+01:002010-06-08T14:11:12.823+01:00Good stuff, but could you keep up to speed with th...Good stuff, but could you keep up to speed with the acronyms? <br /><br />The Department of Health was rebranded from DoH to <a href="http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/index.htm" rel="nofollow">DH</a> after the Lib Cons got in.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-55979314538422426482010-06-08T14:04:04.434+01:002010-06-08T14:04:04.434+01:00Both good points. Thanks. I've added a little ...Both good points. Thanks. I've added a little update to the post about this.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-80324788347164736122010-06-08T13:36:20.591+01:002010-06-08T13:36:20.591+01:00Doesn't this compliance figure include all the...Doesn't this compliance figure include all the places that were non-smoking prior to the ban? i.e. Supermarkets, churches etc.<br />In which case it's not a direct lie, but IS misleading, no doubt intentially.McRantinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01984519435434825866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-26799709843683679652010-06-08T13:03:37.491+01:002010-06-08T13:03:37.491+01:00Chris,
I wonder if that 97-99% statistic is the us...Chris,<br />I wonder if that 97-99% statistic is the usual lying with numbers tactic that the extremists use. It would be a standard move from their playbook to observe that 97% of the time that a particular smoker would have legally smoked a particular cigarette in a pub now does not do so (that is plausible), or that 99% of pubs comply with the rule that a "no smoking" sign must be posted (why wouldn't they), and then lie by implying (or even saying) that the data suggests that these numbers refer to perfect compliance at the facility level. That method of lying would be a standard move from the globalink playbook.<br />--Carl Phillips<br /><br />P.S. I wonder if that will be the longest sentence I write all week.Carl V Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01919902852457771666noreply@blogger.com