Link
The state of Pennsylvania banned bath salts and other "synthetic drugs" recently. There was bipartisan foolishness here. It is crazy our elected officials aren't even smart enough to ask the right question.
The right question isn't "Are bath salts bad?" Of course they are. The right questions are: "Will a ban on bath salts result in a net benefit to society?" or "Will the benefits from the ban be greater than the costs that are imposed?"
It was clear with alcohol prohibition and is clear with the current prohibition on marijuana and other drugs that banning a drug often leads to costs (in terms of spending on jails and law enforcement along with crimes related to the prohibition) than any benefits that are realized. It may be different with this ban, but the fact that nobody even asks the question does not inspire confidence.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Media coverage of cigarette labeling research
My recent tobacco labeling research has been mentioned in several prominent outlets, such as the the Jerusalem Post and Yahoo!. Most notable, however, is probably US News and World Reports.
My university has a nice summary on their news page:
Will graphic cigarette package warning labels significantly reduce demand? A new study suggests it will. News of the findings has been reported by a number of media outlets, including U.S. News & World Report.
Current U.S. policy requires that tobacco companies cover 50 percent of one side of a cigarette pack with a text warning. But the FDA recently unveiled nine new cigarette warning labels, which include graphic images of lung and mouth cancer, to be unveiled in September 2012.
A sample of 404 adult smokers from four states participated in an experimental auction on cigarette packs with four different kinds of warning labels. All packs carried the same message: smoking causes mouth cancer.
The first pack featured a text-only message on the side of the pack, the current U.S. policy. The second had a text-only message that covered 50 percent of the lower half of the front, back and one side of the pack. A third had the same text message, but with a photo depicting mouth cancer. The fourth package had the same text and graphic photo, but was a mostly unbranded pack, meaning all color and symbolic brand elements were removed except for the brand’s font, size and descriptors.
“We found that the label with just the front text warning had little effect on consumers,” says study co-author Matthew Rousu, associate professor of economics at Susquehanna University. “However, demand was significantly lower for packs with grotesque images, with the lowest demand associated with the plain, unbranded pack.”
The bids for cigarette packs that had a grotesque photo and no brand imagery received bids that were 17 percent lower than the bids for the package with the current US warning label.
“Results from our study suggest that the new health warnings with graphic pictures will reduce demand for cigarettes,” says Rousu, who conducted the study with James F. Thrasher, David Hammond, Ashley Navarro and Jay R. Corrigan.
“Regulators should also consider health warnings with graphic pictures, but also plain packaging policies for tobacco products,” he adds. “Color and brand imagery can support false beliefs about reduced risks of some brands.”
What their study can’t address is how the new labels will affect non-smokers. “One would assume that it would also have an impact on non-smokers, that some of those people will not start smoking because they are turned off by the images,” says Rousu.
The study, “Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and ‘plain’ cigarette packaging: Evidence form experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States,” appears in the September 2011 issue of the journal Health Policy.
My university has a nice summary on their news page:
Will graphic cigarette package warning labels significantly reduce demand? A new study suggests it will. News of the findings has been reported by a number of media outlets, including U.S. News & World Report.
Current U.S. policy requires that tobacco companies cover 50 percent of one side of a cigarette pack with a text warning. But the FDA recently unveiled nine new cigarette warning labels, which include graphic images of lung and mouth cancer, to be unveiled in September 2012.
A sample of 404 adult smokers from four states participated in an experimental auction on cigarette packs with four different kinds of warning labels. All packs carried the same message: smoking causes mouth cancer.
The first pack featured a text-only message on the side of the pack, the current U.S. policy. The second had a text-only message that covered 50 percent of the lower half of the front, back and one side of the pack. A third had the same text message, but with a photo depicting mouth cancer. The fourth package had the same text and graphic photo, but was a mostly unbranded pack, meaning all color and symbolic brand elements were removed except for the brand’s font, size and descriptors.
“We found that the label with just the front text warning had little effect on consumers,” says study co-author Matthew Rousu, associate professor of economics at Susquehanna University. “However, demand was significantly lower for packs with grotesque images, with the lowest demand associated with the plain, unbranded pack.”
The bids for cigarette packs that had a grotesque photo and no brand imagery received bids that were 17 percent lower than the bids for the package with the current US warning label.
“Results from our study suggest that the new health warnings with graphic pictures will reduce demand for cigarettes,” says Rousu, who conducted the study with James F. Thrasher, David Hammond, Ashley Navarro and Jay R. Corrigan.
“Regulators should also consider health warnings with graphic pictures, but also plain packaging policies for tobacco products,” he adds. “Color and brand imagery can support false beliefs about reduced risks of some brands.”
What their study can’t address is how the new labels will affect non-smokers. “One would assume that it would also have an impact on non-smokers, that some of those people will not start smoking because they are turned off by the images,” says Rousu.
The study, “Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and ‘plain’ cigarette packaging: Evidence form experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States,” appears in the September 2011 issue of the journal Health Policy.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Obama's odds of being reelected drop below 50%
The betting markets tend to give good predictions on the odds of a particular event occurring - much better than polling. Today was the first time that I saw the odds of Obama at below 50%.
It's not a surprise, really as the incumbent party's performance in the presidential election has been shown to be highly correlated (and dependant) on the economy's performance since 1970. In years when the economy is doing poorly, the incumbent party has always lost the presidency. When the economy has been doing great, the incumbent party has always won the presidency. When our economy has either been just coming out of a recession, or just going into a recession, it has been very close (with the incumbent party losing both times - 1976 and 2000).
I would guess that if the unemployment rate is above 8% next November, it doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate - he/she will defeat Obama. If the economy improves dramatically and the unemployment rate is below 7%, it also doesn't matter, Obama will defeat anybody. The nomination process likely only will matter if the unemployment hovers somewhere in the seven-percent range next fall.
It's not a surprise, really as the incumbent party's performance in the presidential election has been shown to be highly correlated (and dependant) on the economy's performance since 1970. In years when the economy is doing poorly, the incumbent party has always lost the presidency. When the economy has been doing great, the incumbent party has always won the presidency. When our economy has either been just coming out of a recession, or just going into a recession, it has been very close (with the incumbent party losing both times - 1976 and 2000).
I would guess that if the unemployment rate is above 8% next November, it doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate - he/she will defeat Obama. If the economy improves dramatically and the unemployment rate is below 7%, it also doesn't matter, Obama will defeat anybody. The nomination process likely only will matter if the unemployment hovers somewhere in the seven-percent range next fall.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
news story on cigarette labeling study
Link here
Will graphic cigarette package warning labels significantly reduce demand? A new study suggests it will.
Current US policy requires that tobacco companies cover 50 percent of one side of a cigarette pack with a text warning. But the FDA recently unveiled nine new cigarette warning labels, which include graphic images of lung and mouth cancer, to be unveiled in September 2012.
A sample of 404 adult smokers from four states participated in an experimental auction on cigarette packs with four different kinds of warning labels. All packs carried the same message: smoking causes mouth cancer.
The first pack featured a text-only message on the side of the pack, the current US policy. The second had a text-only message that covered 50 percent of the lower half of the front, back and one side of the pack. A third had the same text message, but with a photo depicting mouth cancer. The fourth package had the same text and graphic photo, but was a mostly unbranded pack, meaning all color and symbolic brand elements were removed except for the brand's font, size and descriptors.
"We found that the label with just the front text warning had little effect on consumers," says study co-author Matthew Rousu, professor of economics at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa. "However, demand was significantly lower for packs with grotesque images, with the lowest demand associated with the plain, unbranded pack."
The bids for cigarette packs that had a grotesque photo and no brand imagery received bids that were 17 percent lower than the bids for the package with the current US warning label.
"Results from our study suggest that the new health warnings with graphic pictures will reduce demand for cigarettes," says Rousu, who conducted the study with James F. Thrasher, David Hammond, Ashley Navarro and Jay R. Corrigan.
"Regulators should also consider health warnings with graphic pictures, but also plain packaging policies for tobacco products," he adds. "Color and brand imagery can support false beliefs about reduced risks of some brands."
What their study can't address is how the new labels will affect non-smokers. "One would assume that it would also have an impact on non-smokers, that some of those people will not start smoking because they are turned off by the images," says Rousu.
The study, "Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and 'plain' cigarette packaging: Evidence form experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States," appears in the September 2011 issue of the journal Health Policy.
###
Graphic warning labels reduce demand for cigarettes
Tuesday, August 9, 2011Will graphic cigarette package warning labels significantly reduce demand? A new study suggests it will.
Current US policy requires that tobacco companies cover 50 percent of one side of a cigarette pack with a text warning. But the FDA recently unveiled nine new cigarette warning labels, which include graphic images of lung and mouth cancer, to be unveiled in September 2012.
A sample of 404 adult smokers from four states participated in an experimental auction on cigarette packs with four different kinds of warning labels. All packs carried the same message: smoking causes mouth cancer.
The first pack featured a text-only message on the side of the pack, the current US policy. The second had a text-only message that covered 50 percent of the lower half of the front, back and one side of the pack. A third had the same text message, but with a photo depicting mouth cancer. The fourth package had the same text and graphic photo, but was a mostly unbranded pack, meaning all color and symbolic brand elements were removed except for the brand's font, size and descriptors.
"We found that the label with just the front text warning had little effect on consumers," says study co-author Matthew Rousu, professor of economics at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa. "However, demand was significantly lower for packs with grotesque images, with the lowest demand associated with the plain, unbranded pack."
The bids for cigarette packs that had a grotesque photo and no brand imagery received bids that were 17 percent lower than the bids for the package with the current US warning label.
"Results from our study suggest that the new health warnings with graphic pictures will reduce demand for cigarettes," says Rousu, who conducted the study with James F. Thrasher, David Hammond, Ashley Navarro and Jay R. Corrigan.
"Regulators should also consider health warnings with graphic pictures, but also plain packaging policies for tobacco products," he adds. "Color and brand imagery can support false beliefs about reduced risks of some brands."
What their study can't address is how the new labels will affect non-smokers. "One would assume that it would also have an impact on non-smokers, that some of those people will not start smoking because they are turned off by the images," says Rousu.
The study, "Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and 'plain' cigarette packaging: Evidence form experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States," appears in the September 2011 issue of the journal Health Policy.
###
Monday, August 8, 2011
Uplifting view?
Wow, the markets aren't happy today. This could make some sad.
However, my father in law yesterday told my wife a bit of uplifting advice and I paraphrase: "Our country survived Jimmy Carter. No matter how bad it gets now, our country can get through it!"
I thought that was a funny yet accurate way to help put things in perspective.
However, my father in law yesterday told my wife a bit of uplifting advice and I paraphrase: "Our country survived Jimmy Carter. No matter how bad it gets now, our country can get through it!"
I thought that was a funny yet accurate way to help put things in perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
