Plain Packaged Cigarettes: Is it a charter for counterfeiters ?

[PeteMorris]

Hardly. If you have half the population who are overweight and you reduce it to 1/4 then you have halved the number overweight. That's a 50% reduction whichever way you look at it.

 

But you could also say...sitting on the other side of the fence that you have reduced it by a quarter.

 

It depends what you're trying to convey!...surely?

[Uptowngirl]

Based on sales of legitimate cigarettes? Duty revenue?

 

It's also reckoned for instance that 50% of the hand rolling tobacco smoked in the UK is obtained by other means. Of course that figure isn't taken into account for obvious reasons. This makes a lot of the smoking reduction calcs severely flawed.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

 

Not really. The authorities have a pretty good idea about how much tobacco is being smuggled and the amount has dropped by half over the decade.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcustoms.hmrc.gov.uk%2FchannelsPortalWebApp%2FdownloadFile%3FcontentID%3DHMCE_PROD1_031246&ei=X0suUK2hDYOd0AXD84DwDA&usg=AFQjCNHvNw3zQBG5yXINRlEATNG67z_hBg

 

 

Since Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) “Tackling Tobacco Smuggling” Strategywas first introduced in 2000 the size of the illicit cigarette market has been cut by almost halfwith more than 20 billion cigarettes and over 2,700 tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco seized. There have been more than 3300 criminal prosecutions for tobacco offences following action by our officers.

[truman]

But you could also say...sitting on the other side of the fence that you have reduced it by a quarter.

 

It depends what you're trying to convey!...surely?

 

The number of overweight people (in the above example) has been reduced by 50%..the people who weren't overweight haven't been included..

 

I don't know how simple to go just to illustrate... errr.

 

you have ten balls in a jar.5 red and 5 blue..if you change a red one into a blue one then you have reduced the number of red balls by 20% even though only 1 ball (10%) has changed...so there has been a reduction in red balls of 20%

[Uptowngirl]

But you could also say...sitting on the other side of the fence that you have reduced it by a quarter.

 

It depends what you're trying to convey!...surely?

 

I suppose you could if you couldn't do basic maths.

[Uptowngirl]

The number of overweight people (in the above example) has been reduced by 50%..the people who weren't overweight haven't been included..

 

I don't know how simple to go just to illustrate... errr.

 

you have ten balls in a jar.5 red and 5 blue..if you change a red one into a blue one then you have reduced the number of red balls by 20% even though only 1 ball (10%) has changed...so there has been a reduction in red balls of 20%

 

If you eliminated obesity totally you woud reduce the number completely. It's pretty difficult to argue that's not a 100% reduction but I'll hazard a guess someone will.

 

Although it would be pretty galling for the tobacco companies to think that a 7% reduction in smoking had led to a 50% reduction in sales.:huh:

Edited August 17, 2012 by Uptowngirl

[Tom Bailey]

If we’re going to throw about statistics with wild abandon then it’s worth reporting the latest official NHS statistics: In 1998 28% of adults smoked by 2009 that percentage fell to 21% - a 7% decrease over ten years – a little more modest then the 50% claimed earlier. On a more pertinent note, smoking rates for youngsters between 16 and 19 years old have gone from 25% in 2005 to 27% in 2009 so all these recently introduced regulatory measures have actually had the opposite effect, as indeed will Plain Packaging.... If the Government’s ambition is to eliminate smoking in the UK by 2050, then they’re preferred policy approach for excessive regulation is heading in the wrong direction. Peer to peer mentoring like the ASSIST programme remains the only prevention intervention that has been rigorously evaluated to show real effects. Shame the government isn’t prepared to fund it…!

 

Where are these 16-19 year olds getting the money from to smoke? A 2% increase hardly compares two a 7% drop. My 4 kids were told that if they smoked they wouldn't get a penny from us, our eldest smoked for a very short time but soon kicked it.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Tom Bailey

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Habit or bucket?

[Tom Bailey]

Habit or bucket?

He'd hardly have kicked the bucket considering he's got a good family and carreer along with the rest of our children.

[Common Sense]

Where are these 16-19 year olds getting the money from to smoke? A 2% increase hardly compares two a 7% drop. My 4 kids were told that if they smoked they wouldn't get a penny from us, our eldest smoked for a very short time but soon kicked it.

 

2% is still significant and this is exponential. If smoking rates are rising among teenagers, despite the regulatory measures introduced, then its probably time to stop regulating and time to educate....in Germany over the last ten years they've introduced a robust peer to peer educational program and seen youth smoking rates drop from the highest in Europe ten years ago at 27% to now one of the lowest at 11%...

 

As for where your teenagers are getting the money from i'm not so sure, personally i always encourage a little entrepreneurialism in my children!

[PeteMorris]

I suppose you could if you couldn't do basic maths.

 

Please Uptown..give me break! I'm not disputing your calculations. All I'm trying to convey, is that very often statistics are presented in a way which favours the argument of the person using them.

 

Hence the very old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics"

 

Surely you can concede that point!..?