5 ms·
Go Mexico! Unregulated markets often don't produce great outcomes for society. Regulate them for the public good. I live in Australia, this reminds me of our
by shoo 3y ago
Go Mexico! Unregulated markets often don't produce great outcomes for society. Regulate them for the public good.
I live in Australia, this reminds me of our tobacco plain packaging legislation [1]. A post implementation review was conducted a few years afterward [2]. Some interesting bits from the PIR conclusion:
> Applying the government’s RBM framework, the regulatory burden was estimated as $73.87 million across
the entire industry (including manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers).
> While it was not possible to complete a full Cost Benefit Analysis for this PIR (due to the limitations on the data available at this time and provided by industry), potential monetised benefits were also analysed including an illustrative example of health benefits. That example estimated that a 0.07 percentage point drop in smoking prevalence would be equivalent to $273 million in monetised health benefits
> Dr Chipty’s modelling also estimated a 0.55 percentage point drop in smoking prevalence in Australia, over 34 months following implementation, attributable to the 2012 packaging changes. This strong result, that is “likely understated”, is expected to grow into the future as the full effects of the 2012
packaging changes are realised over the longer term
So, within 3 years after the introduction of packaging changes, smoking prevalence throughout the population had dropped by at least half a percent (approx 100k people). It cost the tobacco industry less than $100m in one-off transitional costs, and it's estimated to have more than $2b in monetised health benefits over that three year period alone.
It also cost tobacco industry lost revenues & profits, but hey, that's their problem, maybe they can find a different business to invest in.
[1] https://www.health.gov.au/topics/smoking-and-tobacco/tobacco-control/plain-packaging https://www.health.gov.au/topics/smoking-and-tobacco/tobacco...
[2] https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2016/02/Tobacco-Plain-Packaging-PIR.pdf https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2016/02/Tob...
- refurb 3y agoIsn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? This reminds me of the analysis I’ve seen for marketing campaigns.
- kllvql 3y agoOne way people try to tease out those differences is through methods like "Difference in Differences"[1] which try to estimate causal relationships from observational data. These methods are used in marketing analysis as well. In my experience, it is easy to break one of the many assumptions inherent in methods like Diff-in-diff. Because of this I have little trust in these techniques in general. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_in_differences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_in_differences
- rmm 3y agoThis. Smoking was going downhill anyway
- throwawaylinux 3y ago> Isn’t tobacco use trending down anyways? How could you possibly tease out the drop in tobacco use from one change to packaging? Anything in the real world has many many factors affecting its consumption. What would it matter if it was trending down specifically? Or are you asking what models and statistical tools they use to make analyses like this when there are a complex set of factors at play?
- refurb 3y agoId love to see the confidence intervals on that 0.55% impact (p=0.5, -0.3, 1.3).
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
- louthy 3y ago> While it was not possible to complete a full Cost Benefit Analysis for this PIR (due to the limitations on the data available at this time and provided by industry), potential monetised benefits were also analysed including an illustrative example of health benefits. That example estimated that a 0.07 percentage point drop in smoking prevalence would be equivalent to $273 million in monetised health benefits I wonder whether they take into account the long-term cost of people - who quit or don't smoke because of this legislation - becoming more of a burden on the social systems because of extended life? Things like this always remind me of the 'Smoke Screen' episode from Yes, Prime Minister [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqTz4zg8Xk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqTz4zg8Xk
- dna_polymerase 3y agoI don't know why this comment got downvoted, I find this to be an important discussion. The solution can't be to kill old people, or to reduce the population in any way, but to bring cost down on other fronts. The follow-up questions would read something like: How can we increase active life span on a population level? How do we tackle sicknesses of elderly people? How can we make health-care cheaper? ...
- jeppester 3y agoI believe smokers generally become a burden on social systems a few years earlier than nonsmokers, and so have fewer years where they are a benefit. I can't see how that could potentially be a net positive for society.
- unmole 3y ago> I believe smokers generally become a burden on social systems a few years earlier than nonsmokers, and so have fewer years where they are a benefit. The vast majority of smokers remain productive until they retire but they have lower lifespans. Also take into account that nicotine suppresses appetite and smokers are less likely to be overweight.
- duckmysick 3y ago
- 2Gkashmiri 3y agohttps://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1846046 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1846046 look at this indian governmental press release mandating photos to be posted on tobacco packs edit: CW. NSFL imagery on the page
- mfru 3y agothis was disgusting, a content warning would have been appreciated
- 2Gkashmiri 3y agosorry..... the shock factor is what is supposed to disuade potential smokers and smokers for giving up smoking
- shoo 3y agothis is pretty close to what regulated tobacco packaging has looked like in australia for the last decade. a giant message with a health warning ("SMOKING HARMS UNBORN BABIES") paired with an often gross / confronting photo of the corresponding health outcome.
- t90fan 3y agosimilar to what we have had in the UK for a good while too, there is one with a sad limp looking cigarette and SMOKING CAUSES IMPOTENCE which I find very effective, more so than the ones of tumours even.
- aleph_minus_one 3y agoThere actually do exist smokers who because of these pictures attempt to collect cigarette packs with all of these ugly pictures like children do for collectible stickers. :-)
- catboybotnet 3y agoAlways on the lookout for a Bryan, that's how I know I'm lucky that day :)