How long before the "Tobacco Dogs" are turned on you

[gweilgi]

2 hours ago, CaptainQuintero said:

I think the most hilarious thing is that they think it's 10% of the market, I'd venture is far more like a third

From the UK government website:

"The estimates are produced using a ‘top-down’ methodology: the total consumption is estimated, the legitimate consumption is subtracted, and the remainder is the illicit market.

Total consumption is estimated using data from the ONS Opinions and Lifestyle survey. Legitimate consumption is based on the returns HMRC receives from the volumes of tobacco on which duties have been paid and an estimate of cross-border shopping and duty-free sales.

In addition to the uplift that accounts for under-reporting, there is an uplift that accounts for people who falsely deny smoking, which comes from the Health Survey for England."

I have also read of researchers who produced their own estimates by going through garbage to find empty packets and fag ends and using the proportion of foreign and clearly untaxed cigarettes as a substitute measure.  

 

[Fuzz]

[PapaDisco]

On 2/16/2018 at 9:39 PM, gweilgi said:

What none of them seem to understand is the concept of a tipping point.  Whether it is alcohol, tobacco or anything else, there is a point beyond which even normally law-abiding citizens say "enough is enough" and turn to alternative sources.  This is exemplified by the astonishing fact that only 14% of those who know of illegal tobacco being sold bother to report it to the authorities -- meaning that 85% of people actually support criminal enterprise.

Agreed.  Charge too much and piracy flourishes.  The same thing happened with the CD/Music business.  

[PaulP]

On 2/15/2018 at 2:28 PM, Doctorossi said:

Sounds pretty spurious to me, being that I've never met anyone who quit smoking because they literally could not afford to continue. Try as governments might to price people out of cigarettes, an addict is going to buy.

Here is an NIH study that differs.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

[gweilgi]

 

4 hours ago, PaulP said:

Here is an NIH study that differs.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

Interesting.  

So how does that explain the concentration of smokers in the lower socio-economic strata?  Whether in the UK, Canada, the UK or Australia: smoking is inversely correlated with class, meaning that those parts of society least able to afford the swingeing prices are also those most likely to keep smoking.