DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**fount_pirat** · 06-22-2010, 01:38 AM

None of those studies demonstrate the income level of those who reduce cigarrette consumption. And frankly I don't see where they account for the number of people that are reducing smoking regardless of the price. For example how much would smoking have been reduced without a tax increase? What do smoking bans in public places contribute to the reduction? There are too many other reasons why there has been a reduction in smoking to be able to attribute it to increased taxes.

On the first page of the second source Pinky cited there's a specific reference to lower-income populations, so your first sentence is simply untrue. They are accounting for the number of people that are reducing smoking regardless of price by looking at data pre-tax increase, analyzing trends, etc. That's why statisticians do. The argument that there are too many variables at play is a weak one as that is true in virtually every situation. There are a number of statistical methods used to control for different variables and tease out effects. If you want to pick apart each study cited in Pinky's links and say "well, they didn't consider xyz" have at it, but to make this kind of blanket statement is silly.

06-22-2010, 01:38 AM	#7
fount_pirat Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 618 Senior Member	None of those studies demonstrate the income level of those who reduce cigarrette consumption. And frankly I don't see where they account for the number of people that are reducing smoking regardless of the price. For example how much would smoking have been reduced without a tax increase? What do smoking bans in public places contribute to the reduction? There are too many other reasons why there has been a reduction in smoking to be able to attribute it to increased taxes. On the first page of the second source Pinky cited there's a specific reference to lower-income populations, so your first sentence is simply untrue. They are accounting for the number of people that are reducing smoking regardless of price by looking at data pre-tax increase, analyzing trends, etc. That's why statisticians do. The argument that there are too many variables at play is a weak one as that is true in virtually every situation. There are a number of statistical methods used to control for different variables and tease out effects. If you want to pick apart each study cited in Pinky's links and say "well, they didn't consider xyz" have at it, but to make this kind of blanket statement is silly.
	Quote