Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

That's a fascinating theory that I'll be mulling about for a while.

My immediate thought is that smoking overall is falling and falling, so maybe advertising does more than shift brand loyalty of existing customers.

Semi-related: I was pretty convinced that smoking was at maybe 5% in Canada based on my observation that almost nobody where I've worked and gone to school smoked. Turns out it's closer to 25%, which was shocking. I came to realise that smoking must be very very concentrated among specific demographics as to insulate me from it. Got me thinking about how my perception of advertising for smoking may also be very very off.

View on HN

My immediate thought is that smoking overall is falling and falling, so maybe advertising does more than shift brand loyalty of existing customers.

Smoking in the United States and other developed nations is declining, but it’s rising worldwide. Tobacco companies simply shifted their focus to poorer, less educated nations and they’re taking in the money.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigaret...

While smoking rates have leveled off or declined in developed nations, especially among men, in developing nations tobacco consumption continues to rise.

But that seems to support the correlation between marketing spend and smoking, since marketing is banned in the US but legal elsewhere right?

I'd imagine a factor in the rising rates in developing nations is the due to the fact that 40%+ of global tobacco sales come from state owned firms. China's state owned China Tobacco company is the world's largest tobacco company and earns profits in excess of $16 Billion annually. Very little incentive to cut smoking rates when smoking is contributing billions to state coffers.

That’s a very good point, but of course the government is going to have to pay in some fashion for the health impacts of smoking. It’s sort of a weird situation for a government to be in, making profit from tobacco and shouldering the inevitable externalities. I don’t know the specifics of how that breaks down though, or if it’s still a net profit center.

Of course it may not matter in the sense that cronyism could ensure the burdens are placed on one group, and the benefits concentrated in another. I don’t know enough about China though, to say more.

I had a similar reaction when I looked at the smoking rates for Canada after reading this WashPo piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/americas-new-tobacco...

People in Quebec smoke much more than in Ontario.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com