in Mexico ten years ago cigarettes used to cost 14 pesos, very heavy taxing puts them now at 45 pesos, 3.2 times more, its target price for the next five years is 100 pesos, or ~7 USD with current exchange rate.
My first thought was to say "Ha, that's nothing, try $15 in New York." Then I decided to look at the average salary in Mexico (~$6000). Those are some very expensive cigarettes!
They're even more expensive in New Zealand. Packs range from $15 to $20, or $40 for 30g of rolling tobacco. The government increases the tax on them every year.
I'm curious why they didn't include the United States (or some other Western countries) as a reference point/baseline since FiveThirtyEight's audience, much like HackerNews, is probably mostly in Western countries...
While a broad definition of "the West" would include Latin America (not just geographically, but also due to its European colonial history), it is common to view Latin America as a separate entity from "the West."
Yes, the separation of west, east, and perhaps one or more additional categories is one based more on differences in cultural values and norms than purely geography.
I was referring more specifically to the division lines you contrived between Europe/North America on one hand and Central and South America on the other hand even both more or less share the same values and ideals.
So it can't be cultural, so it could be ethnocentric and therefore was my question for you.
Are you using some new/nonstandard/uncommon use of "ethnocentric" that doesn't involve culture? I'm not sure if you're trying to subtly paint me as a racist, but it seems that way.
Europe, North America, and Latin America are all very different in all but a few superficial ways, but I do find that Europe and North America are more like each other than either is like Latin America.
> I do find that Europe and North America are more like each other than either is like Latin America.
"Latin America" is very big area and it overlaps with North America. In my experience the most European-like country in the Americas is by far Argentina.
I apologize for finding it easier to contrast "Latin America and North America" rather than "Latin America and North America minus the one part of North America that also happens to be Latin American." I thought my meaning was fairly clear.
Europe and North America are very big places too. Both have regions with differing cultures to various extents, as well.
Probably more geopolitically than ethnocentric. I think due to lingering effects of the Cold War, the term "The West" has colloquially been associated with the original definition of "First World" and means any developed, democratic, capitalist countries (or more specifically those allied with NATO). In that sense, Australia is more western than most of Latin America.
It is just like when we say "The South" in the US we are usually referring to the historical and political south (i.e. the Confederate States or more generally the Southeast). You will rarely if ever hear someone refer to somewhere west of Texas as The South.
so in your etnocentric (and maybe outdated) point of view the west would only be USA, Canada and parts of Europe?
Where does Japan, NZ and Australia fit in that world view because they are in the east but aligned politically with the west...
I find extremely odd what passes in the concepts inside the minds of some readers here. "Broad definition of the west would include latin america", WTF! Most of the countries here are ex-colonies of European invaders. Most countries are dominated by capitalist interests with mostly democratic governments. What requirement countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, etc are missing?
I wish people paid more attention to whats has been going around the world the past 50 years and got rid of silly outdated concepts of the west, the east and other useless labels.
NZ and Australia share a European colonial heritage and are culturally aligned with other countries of "the West." Japan is somewhat westernized in terms of business, but overall aligns much more closely with "the East."
These labels are frequently debated in light of recent cultural changes and geopolitical events. You will notice that in my comment I mentioned that Latin America can be (and often is) considered to be part of the West, but it is also common to include it in another category.
> NZ and Australia share a European colonial heritage and are culturally aligned with other countries of "the West."
The same goes for pretty much all of Latin America. Remember, the majority of South Americans are white and steeped in European culture. In my experience it's only Americans that don't consider them part of the west -- often trying to ignore that they have followed every similar development processes and have very similar culture.
> the majority of South Americans are white and steeped in European culture
This varies greatly between countries in South America, and often within regions of countries. Argentina is an example of a country where what you say is true, but it's somewhat unusual for the region, having killed or displaced most of the indigenous population, somewhat like happened in the United States. Many South American countries are a much a more complex mixture of ethnic and cultural descent. Often the upper classes are more white and more culturally European, while the lower classes are more indigenous and less culturally European. Many countries have active cultural and political conflicts between the these segments; for example Bolivia fairly recently elected its first non-white President (Evo Morales) after years of the minority white-European population forming the ruling class.
Most of the countries here are ex-colonies of European invaders.
That's part of the point, really. It's not a question of regime, nor of geography; it's a definition based on an history of power and influence. See the countries where the IMF directors come from? That's the West. And it's very much not outdated.
It's a historical term, and one that hasn't been widely considered to be insensitive. You can argue that it is, but arguing that people using it are is just being ignorant of history.
Huh, this is the first I've ever heard that idea professed. My understanding was that West and East correlated reasonably well to Occident and Orient, so the Americas, Europe, Africa as the west (Occidental), and Asia, Oceania, as the east (Orient), with "near east" being the middle east and "far east" being eastern Asia.
Not sure how Australia fits in there. Geographically it's eastern but culturally it's western (though that pretty much came as a result of westerners kicking aboriginal people out of their home, so far as I'm aware).
Australia and New Zealand are very much part of the West, because that label is far more about cultural and political alignment, rather than geography. New Zealand and Australia are just as 'European' as Canada or the USA.
In Latin America, Latin America is seen as part of "the West". In Europe and the US, "the West" is a different entity that includes only Europe and the US, Canada, Australia and NZ. Different things are meant by the terms though.
I believe that for several decades in the last century, "West" in English speaking countries became somewhat synonymous with "NATO". The "East"/"West" terminology was tainted by cold-war political language.
I don't mean to say that it is "correct" in any way, just that it fairly accurately encompasses how many Americans informally loosely categorize different nations/regions.
What?? I am in Brazil and we all here consider us to be "in the west" even if a more follower profile than trend setting. Our culture and values are more aligned and influenced by Europe and USA than China, India, Japan, Russia.
The table actually scrolls and includes many countries, on OS X I had to click on it before it would.
Australia is down -41%, although it may be an outlier because we have been a leader in making it hard to sell/market cigarettes, and they're very heavily taxed.
> But the South American nation of 2.7 million is currently embroiled in a battle with Philip Morris, which claims that legislation requiring 80 percent of cigarette packs to be covered with health warnings is devaluing its “legally-protected trademark and brand.”
From the Lean Startup methodology point of view, this is a big win, because Big Tobacco panicking validates Uruguay's strategy against smoking. All it takes is for more countries to follow suit.
I don't smoke, and the warnings certainly scare me, but I always find myself in a foreign duty-free shop shoving myself through throngs of people carrying a tower of Malboro boxes - lung cancer seems to be the last thing on their mind.
Once people are addicted, it's very hard for them to quit. Even after they saw relatives or friends dying from cancer. So I don't think the warnings work for them. Hopefully they prevent people (usually teenagers) from starting to smoke.
It's just one part of a larger educational campaign. The goal is to not let there be a time when people "forget", or more accurately choose to ignore, the health risks.
The warnings on the packaging are mostly targeted at non-smokers who might become smokers. If they decide to buy some cigarettes, they can't avoid being reminded of the long-term effects. If they buy them regardless, every time they pull out a cigarette they're reminded of what might happen should they develop a full addiction.
After a decade or two of lowered rates of new smokers, the population achieves a sort of critical mass of non-smokers that change the public attitude toward smoking. At this point banning smoking in public places, or increasing tobacco taxes, become politically tolerable.
Watch that video of tobacco executive lying before congress. Look at them perjuring themselves. Cigarettes are engineered nicotine delivery tools.
Those tobacco companies not only had research labs that proved nicotine was addictive but produced research to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes.
Tell me that's not something that deserves to be removed from the earth.
Brazil has reduced smoking by 35% since 2000 using mandatory scary pictures in the packaging, restrictions on advertisement, restrictions on public smoking and mandatory minimal prices.
Whether packaging alone works, who knows. The combination of those policies is highly effective.
The cigarette companies are fighting the plain-packaging laws tooth and nail, much harder than they have some of the other restrictions. They know that these laws have a real effect.
How would you, anecdotally, notice a 25% decrease or increase in the prevalence of smoking in a country? I bet most people would have trouble noticing, even if they tried paying attention really well, and that's probably true even at a 50% change level. But that amount of change can be transformative from a business perspective.
What kills smoking as a cultural norm and destroys the tobacco business isn't everyone stopping smoking overnight due to ugly packaging. That's an overly simplistic and unrealistic scenario. But if packaging changes can result in a persistent decline in the prevalence of smoking that sort of change is still enormous. Being able to cut the prevalence of smoking in half over, say, 50 years? Still a pretty big deal. But it looks like these programs are actually far more effective.
Not that I disagree with you, or that I don't like your comment; however, I'd like to point out that the "lean startup" methodology was invented just a few years ago, based on many things that have been in existence for far longer, and that fighting a big tobacco company isn't necessary a "startup".
I've noticed this living in Costa Rica, I hardly ever see or walk past someone smoking anymore. When I first came here in 2006 it was everywhere including allowed in bars etc.
I am great fan of disallowing smoking inside public places. I can barely stand being near smoke: My throat just shuts down. So this is a great win for me :)
It's remarkable to me how it's publicly acceptable to despise and loathe smokers and smoking. If you wrote 'I can barely stand being near black people,' you'd rightfully be cast out of polite society, but say, 'I think bars should be legally forced to ban smoking' and one is applauded.
Part of living in a free society is learning some tolerance: tolerance for other viewpoints; for other races; for other religions; for other cuisines; for other modes of dress; and yes, for other lifestyles.
I do not care what people look like or even how they act, I do care about being forced to inhale disgusting and cancerous smoke in enclosed spaces because of their habit. I see no reason why we should accommodate that as a society.
> You don't want to tolerate other people's desire to avoid your toxic smoke?
Of course I do. I'm quite willing to do as a property owner or lessor requires. Note that smoking-banners are the intolerant ones, bringing in the force of law to compel behaviour they desire.
> Unreasonable smokers are exactly why laws are needed.
Likewise, unreasonable non-smokers are exactly why laws are needed.
This is a ridiculous argument. Having people of races different than your own next to you doesn't harm you. However, people smoking next to you force you to inhale cancerous smoke and bear its foul smell.
Do you fail to see the difference?
Black people do not pollute the air I breathe (unless they're smokers). If you get your nicotine fix without dumping crap in the air then I couldn't care less about it.
That is a ridiculous analogy, since "being near black people" does not cause the health effects that smoking does.
It's not about "tolerance", it's about not forcing others to inhale the same carcinogens as you because they do not want to get lung cancer. "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
It's nice that California (at least southern) was a pioneer in this area. Whenever I'd have to travel it was like going back in time, to the bad old days. Was pleasantly surprised to see places as far as Rio de Janeiro recently ban it as well.
There's no excuse for it being legal in indoor public places, it's like having peeing/no-peeing sections in the pool.
It is one reason I couldn't live in Europe despite how nice it is... I remember having dinner at a cafe in winter in Germany once. Freezing outside and four smokers, four! at the table next to us. Oh and then there was the smoking couple in the frozen section of the supermarket in Portugal... nowhere to hide. Fuck you people. I suppose I should bring tear-gas and a gas mask next time.
There was a great John Oliver segment on the tobacco industry and how it's evolved to become even more profitable worldwide than it ever was in the US. Highly recommended to watch it.
Here in Brazil my personal view is that people are smoking much less, specially new generations. Ban smoking in all public indoors (clubs, restaurants, offices) or even kind-of-outdoors (no walls, but cover/roofs to protect from rain) has led me to a much healthier life.
Seriously, I spent some days a few years ago on a hostel on Barcelona where I just couldn't possibly be at the common room (where they served free dinner to socialize all the guests, a great idea btw). I couldn't survive the combination of a LOT of smokers and a low ceiling.
Smoking regulations - one of the very few society decisions I am very proud of in my country
What is the smoking situation on Brazilian domestic airline flights these days? Hopefully completely banned?
I visited Brazil in 1987. Back in those days international flights had a smoking section (usually at the back of the plane) and a non-smoking section. So of course the domestic carriers also did the same (TransBrasil in this case). But with a slight change: left side of plane was smoking, right side of plane was non-smoking. As Dave Barry would say: "I am not making this up!".
66 comments
[ 146 ms ] story [ 2629 ms ] threadSo it can't be cultural, so it could be ethnocentric and therefore was my question for you.
Europe, North America, and Latin America are all very different in all but a few superficial ways, but I do find that Europe and North America are more like each other than either is like Latin America.
"Latin America" is very big area and it overlaps with North America. In my experience the most European-like country in the Americas is by far Argentina.
Europe and North America are very big places too. Both have regions with differing cultures to various extents, as well.
It is just like when we say "The South" in the US we are usually referring to the historical and political south (i.e. the Confederate States or more generally the Southeast). You will rarely if ever hear someone refer to somewhere west of Texas as The South.
Where does Japan, NZ and Australia fit in that world view because they are in the east but aligned politically with the west...
I find extremely odd what passes in the concepts inside the minds of some readers here. "Broad definition of the west would include latin america", WTF! Most of the countries here are ex-colonies of European invaders. Most countries are dominated by capitalist interests with mostly democratic governments. What requirement countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, etc are missing?
I wish people paid more attention to whats has been going around the world the past 50 years and got rid of silly outdated concepts of the west, the east and other useless labels.
These labels are frequently debated in light of recent cultural changes and geopolitical events. You will notice that in my comment I mentioned that Latin America can be (and often is) considered to be part of the West, but it is also common to include it in another category.
The same goes for pretty much all of Latin America. Remember, the majority of South Americans are white and steeped in European culture. In my experience it's only Americans that don't consider them part of the west -- often trying to ignore that they have followed every similar development processes and have very similar culture.
This varies greatly between countries in South America, and often within regions of countries. Argentina is an example of a country where what you say is true, but it's somewhat unusual for the region, having killed or displaced most of the indigenous population, somewhat like happened in the United States. Many South American countries are a much a more complex mixture of ethnic and cultural descent. Often the upper classes are more white and more culturally European, while the lower classes are more indigenous and less culturally European. Many countries have active cultural and political conflicts between the these segments; for example Bolivia fairly recently elected its first non-white President (Evo Morales) after years of the minority white-European population forming the ruling class.
That's part of the point, really. It's not a question of regime, nor of geography; it's a definition based on an history of power and influence. See the countries where the IMF directors come from? That's the West. And it's very much not outdated.
It's a historical term, and one that hasn't been widely considered to be insensitive. You can argue that it is, but arguing that people using it are is just being ignorant of history.
Not sure how Australia fits in there. Geographically it's eastern but culturally it's western (though that pretty much came as a result of westerners kicking aboriginal people out of their home, so far as I'm aware).
I think that this map is a fairly accurate representation of what the typical American "world-view" is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:Clash...
I don't mean to say that it is "correct" in any way, just that it fairly accurately encompasses how many Americans informally loosely categorize different nations/regions.
Australia is down -41%, although it may be an outlier because we have been a leader in making it hard to sell/market cigarettes, and they're very heavily taxed.
From the Lean Startup methodology point of view, this is a big win, because Big Tobacco panicking validates Uruguay's strategy against smoking. All it takes is for more countries to follow suit.
I don't smoke, and the warnings certainly scare me, but I always find myself in a foreign duty-free shop shoving myself through throngs of people carrying a tower of Malboro boxes - lung cancer seems to be the last thing on their mind.
BTW: We are 3.3 not 2.7 :S
The warnings on the packaging are mostly targeted at non-smokers who might become smokers. If they decide to buy some cigarettes, they can't avoid being reminded of the long-term effects. If they buy them regardless, every time they pull out a cigarette they're reminded of what might happen should they develop a full addiction.
After a decade or two of lowered rates of new smokers, the population achieves a sort of critical mass of non-smokers that change the public attitude toward smoking. At this point banning smoking in public places, or increasing tobacco taxes, become politically tolerable.
Watch that video of tobacco executive lying before congress. Look at them perjuring themselves. Cigarettes are engineered nicotine delivery tools.
Those tobacco companies not only had research labs that proved nicotine was addictive but produced research to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes.
Tell me that's not something that deserves to be removed from the earth.
Whether packaging alone works, who knows. The combination of those policies is highly effective.
What kills smoking as a cultural norm and destroys the tobacco business isn't everyone stopping smoking overnight due to ugly packaging. That's an overly simplistic and unrealistic scenario. But if packaging changes can result in a persistent decline in the prevalence of smoking that sort of change is still enormous. Being able to cut the prevalence of smoking in half over, say, 50 years? Still a pretty big deal. But it looks like these programs are actually far more effective.
Part of living in a free society is learning some tolerance: tolerance for other viewpoints; for other races; for other religions; for other cuisines; for other modes of dress; and yes, for other lifestyles.
You are free to vacate the space; the smoke will not give you cancer anyway and 'disgusting' is pure prejudice.
> I see no reason why we should accommodate that as a society.
Because in a free society we tolerate different lifestyle choices.
Unreasonable smokers are exactly why laws are needed.
You're wrong about the smoke too. Look at the number of children who need medical treatment because their parents smoke around them.
Of course I do. I'm quite willing to do as a property owner or lessor requires. Note that smoking-banners are the intolerant ones, bringing in the force of law to compel behaviour they desire.
> Unreasonable smokers are exactly why laws are needed.
Likewise, unreasonable non-smokers are exactly why laws are needed.
It's not about "tolerance", it's about not forcing others to inhale the same carcinogens as you because they do not want to get lung cancer. "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
There's no excuse for it being legal in indoor public places, it's like having peeing/no-peeing sections in the pool.
It is one reason I couldn't live in Europe despite how nice it is... I remember having dinner at a cafe in winter in Germany once. Freezing outside and four smokers, four! at the table next to us. Oh and then there was the smoking couple in the frozen section of the supermarket in Portugal... nowhere to hide. Fuck you people. I suppose I should bring tear-gas and a gas mask next time.
....similar to how it is done to marijuana right now.
Some will say "we tried this! and all the bars were smoking bars!" But they forget times have changed.
I can't see a reason not to allow at least 1 smoking bar in a given city. It would be really popular among the smokers.
However that directly impacts the health of staff who work there. In the UK that was one of the key factors in banning indoors smoking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8
Seriously, I spent some days a few years ago on a hostel on Barcelona where I just couldn't possibly be at the common room (where they served free dinner to socialize all the guests, a great idea btw). I couldn't survive the combination of a LOT of smokers and a low ceiling.
Smoking regulations - one of the very few society decisions I am very proud of in my country
I visited Brazil in 1987. Back in those days international flights had a smoking section (usually at the back of the plane) and a non-smoking section. So of course the domestic carriers also did the same (TransBrasil in this case). But with a slight change: left side of plane was smoking, right side of plane was non-smoking. As Dave Barry would say: "I am not making this up!".