Just a quickie today – one of those annoying “statistics” that we just can’t pass over without mention.
There’s a site that sells “contracts” that parents can sign with their kids, in which the kids promise to avoid cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. Putting aside the fact that these maggots are charging almost $25.00 for a piece of paper which will let parents feel better about themselves (and won’t have to exercise mature, daily parenting skills) – we were most taken by one of the “scare quotes” at the top of the site:
“Kids under 18 smoke an estimated 17 billion of the 500 billion cigarettes sold each year.”
Hmmm…let’s do that math.
On our calculator, that comes out to 3.4% of all cigarettes consumed by people under the age of 18.
We’ll put aside the question of whether someone who’s 16 or 17 should be considered a “kid” who is unable to make an informed decision about smoking, when they’re the same age that they’re “adult” enough to drive a car and injure *other* people (not to mention the fact that “kids” much younger than 16 are allowed to pilot private planes).
But we *will* ask – assuming that the “statistic” (wherever it comes from – the source wasn’t mentioned) implies that the 3.4% of “kids’” consumption is shameful – shouldn’t that number be lowered, due to the fact that many countries allow smoking at age 16, or even 14?
Since we know the authors of the “statistic” won’t answer that question, we’ll answer that for them. Yes.
So let’s assume that fewer than 3% of all cigarettes consumed are consumed by those who, by law, should not be smoking them.
And we would think (we won’t make up statistics as the anti-smokers do – this just an assumption) that a large number of those cigarettes are smoked by 16 and 17 year olds, who until a few years ago were allowed to smoke in most parts of the world.
So our final conclusion is: well under 3% of all cigarettes consumed worldwide – are smoked by those under the age of 16.
And our final questions are:
1. shouldn’t that be considered good news for the anti-smoking movement?
and
2. shouldn’t that news be so good that they would now turn their attention to other, less important matters such as the drug epidemic, world hunger or global warming?
or
3. are they so focused on making money on their anti-smoking campaigns (the $25 contract is small potatoes, compared to the unaccounted-for millions of dollars that have disappeared from the coffers of major anti-smoking organizations, and the billions of dollars collected by lawyers hired by the anti-smoking movement) — that nothing will constitute victory for them, until the money dries up?
The soapbox is now yours – we’re done for the day.