tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post111567188081330024..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Tobacco control doesn't work, admits CRUKChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-31904003577122459012013-03-23T00:52:12.097+00:002013-03-23T00:52:12.097+00:00Chris, when it's tax time next year, just unde...Chris, when it's tax time next year, just underpay by 50,000 pounds. If they catch you, just say, "Oh! Sorry! It was a rounding error! Perfectly acceptable you know..." <br /><br />It reminds me of figures I saw on e-cigarette use a week or two ago. Evidently something like 67% of 12 year olds who had tried e-cigs were not regular smokers -- thereby proving that e-cigs were creating smokers! However, not only did the study study NOTHING about whether these "experimenters" ever went on to smoke regular cigarettes, they also overlooked a blatantly obvious fact. MOST 12 year olds are not "regular smokers" so obviously most 12 year olds who'd try a puff from an e-cig would be unlikely to be regular smokers. If they'd asked 5 year olds they probably would have found that 99% of all five year olds who'd tried a puff from an e-cig were not regular smokers either. Of course there were only three such cases in all of the UK, but it still comes out to 99% after they churn the figures!<br /><br />Sheeesh.<br /><br />- MJMMichael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-8083788316717237562013-03-22T18:14:47.618+00:002013-03-22T18:14:47.618+00:00I followed the link trail from the report in the ...I followed the link trail from the report in the Telegraph (headlined as a massive increase in youf smoking, sigh) and the telling paragraph (to me) in the CRUK report is based on the "used to smoke" figures; basically they're using some dodgy arithmetic to boost the "new smoker" figures-<br /><br />"If, from a thousand children aged 12 in 2010, 10 smoked regularly, 20 smoked occasionally and 20 used to smoke, and, from a thousand children aged 13 in 2011, 30 smoked regularly, 20 smoked occasionally and 40 used to smoke, there are clearly an additional 20 smokers in 2011 than 2010 (current smokers have increased from 30 to 50). But, in addition, 20 of the 12 year-old smokers in 2010 have given up. To take account of these children that used to smoke, an equivalent number of children must also have started smoking (or else the 20 smokers giving up and starting would cancel each other out), so there are actually 40 new children smoking."<br /><br />So if (simplifying) last year 2 people smoked and 2 people used to smoke, and this year 2 people smoke and 2 used to smoke, they conjure up 2 "new smokers" since the 2 who used to smoke this year must be the 2 who smoked last year.<br /><br />Combining this with an absurdly low definition of a smoker (1 per week!), anybody who occasionally used to have 1 or 2 but now doesn't at all gets added to the "new smoker" figure with which they wanted to headline in support of the packaging ban. Then the media lead with an implication (if you haven't read the report) that youth smoking has risen by this figure.<br /><br />Cunning.Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.com