Idaho should be praised and modeled for low teen smoking rate
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Our local KIDK News 3 affiliate recently carried an Associated Press story that Idaho was criticized by a Washington anti-smoking group because they do not think we spend enough money on teen anti-smoking efforts.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says Idaho spends too little of tobacco taxes and our 1998 tobacco settlement proceeds on discouraging teenagers from smoking. They want Idaho to increase spending almost 1,000% from our current $1.4 million to $11 million annually.
However, KIDK 3 also reported that Idaho has the third lowest teen smoking rate in the nation, with only 15.8% of our high school students smoking. KIDK 3 did not cite where they gathered this fact, so please feel free to support or refute that fact. It would also be informative for Idahoans to know where we stand in terms of adult smoking rates.
If KIDK’s figure is accurate, then it sounds like Idaho is getting much more mileage out of our anti-smoking bucks than most other states are getting. We spend so little and achieve a third lowest rank in teen smoking? That sounds awesome!
Or perhaps there are other factors at play in our low smoking rate, more than just money spent on anti-smoking efforts? I think it was the book Freakonomics which analyzed why teenagers smoke. I won’t attempt to present that author’s logical trail, but the point was that teenagers smoke mostly because they see cool people who smoke. The author argued that teenagers deciding to smoke has less to do with the price of cigarettes, the availability of cigarettes, the warning labels on cigarettes, or peer pressures. Teenagers decide to smoke because the person they think is coolest happens to smoke or not. Their most popular peer smokes, or their favorite celebrity smokes, so the teenager makes a decision to smoke or not based on that. What do you think of that?
I wonder if other Idaho-specific factors play into our low smoking rates? For example, a better statistic would be to analyze teen smoking rates in urban areas versus rural areas. Do teens smoke less in rural areas because it is more difficult to get away with buying tobacco products where everyone knows everyone’s family and business? Without going into the religious discussion, do teens from religious families smoke less as a result of family pressures or stronger beliefs about caring for themselves? Or does Idaho experience lower smoking rates because we have such low income, and cigarettes end up costing more in our economy than they do in other states?
Of course these are all contingent on whether KIDK 3 reported an accurate statistic, that Idaho does have the third-lowest teen smoking rate in America. If so, I think Idaho should not be criticized for not spending enough money on this problem. Idaho should be praised for achieving so much on so little, and we should be studied by these Wasthington policy wonks to see what we are doing in such a cost-effective manner.
If the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids truly believes in their mission, they would try to replicate our success on the cheap all across America, instead of criticizing us for not meeting an arbitrary minimum spending quota.
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 There’s no way to truly gauge how many teens smoke to begin with. Most teens that DO smoke keep it from their family and only smoke around a few select friends anyway.
Like Nemisis pointed out, the numbers could easily be twisted to go either way.
Vote:
0 0 Well there must be some way to measure teen smoking, apparently accurate to the tenth of a percent.
But again we are assuming KIDK news 3 reported an accurate statistic, despite their not reporting the source of that statistic. So I google around and see the 15.8% Idaho teen smoking figure bandied about on many sites, but I cannot find the original source.
The Spokesman Review reported that the aforementioned group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids actually described Idaho as “among the most disappointing” states because of how much money we spend trying to discourage teen smokers.
Uhhh, say what?
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids calls Idaho disappointing because they don’t think we spend enough money, while ignoring our results of being ranked third lowest nationwide in teen smoking?
What kind of ridiculous communist organization is the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids that they ignore results in favor of arbitrary minimum spending levels?
Bill Corr, the executive director for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in another article that Idaho could fix our problem by simply increasing the spending by $10 million.
How ridiculous and disconnected from reality is Bill Corr and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids? I’m beginning to wonder if Bill Corr is invested or tied to companies which receive state spending on teen tobacco prevention?
Again, Idaho should be praised for our low teen smoking rate, not criticized for failing to spend what someone who has never visited Idaho thinks we should spend.
Idaho should be studied and modeled for how we are able to obtain these great results on such little spending. I’d like to see Bill Corr and his organization try to find these answers before unfairly criticizing Idaho.
Vote:
0 0 So I’m going to speak from a teenagers point of view. I attend a local high school currently, and I’m a senior, so I know how things work. I have a MAJOR problem believing this percentage! I remember the FIRST thing I learned on my FIRST day as a sophomore at high school was where the smokers tree is and how to get cigarettes there. 18 year olds will buy them for other kids (who pay them back). Parents buy them. Basically, if you’ll pay for a cigarette, you can get it at the smoker’s tree. In fact, all of the students and teachers and the SRO (the school’s officer) knows exactly where the smoker’s tree is located. (There isn’t actually a tree that is just the name of it) However, it is off school property, so the SRO can’t get them in trouble there. Also, I guess there is some crazy law thing that says unless the kid actually puts the cigarette to his/her mouth, they cannot get in trouble.
I sit in classes, and I know who the smokers are. They go during their passing period or during ‘bathroom breaks’. I HATE having about 5-10 people PER CLASS walk past me and completely reek of cigarette smoke! I know that many classes have more than that. If its not smoking, they also can obtain ‘chew’ (which is an easy thing to hide when your in class and need a fix). I’ve had the kid next to me make sure he had a big coke bottle to spit into. EW! So yeah, I don’t know WHERE they got these statistics because I think smoking is a WAY bigger problem than that. I mean I know some kids who parents buy them the cigarettes, its how they ‘bond’, over a nice cigarette. Yeah, maybe its just me, but I think that we have a lot more than a mere 16%… maybe 25% at the least
Vote:
0 0 I don’t know what law you are thinking of (regarding the cigarette must be in a minor’s mouth), I’ve always understood it that minor tobacco possession is a misdemeanor.
I appreciate your personal observations of teen smoking, but those are just anecdotal, we still don’t know the true figures. If you see 20 people smoking under the tree it may seem like a lot, but if you divide 20/1000 students in your school you see why we need accurate numbers to get the real picture.
I cannot imagine teachers who would not notice teens spitting into a pop can and not know what’s happening. The only place I allowed that was when I taught an alternative high school, but in regular high school and middle school I wouldn’t allow it along with all my colleagues.
Vote:
0 0 Interesting, that we allow certain kinds of activities in alternative high schools vs regular high schools. Seems like we’re treating the alternative students as adults, but not the students who don’t do the things that cause them to end up in an alternative high school. Not a whole lot of incentive to stay in a regular school, if I’m going to be treated with more respect and allowed more adult behavior if I go to the alternative school.
Just a thought.
I don’t think we’ll ever get valid statistics when the poll is more than an opinion poll, because people lie (yes, House is right).
Vote:
0 0 Idaho should also be praised for coming up as 7th in the nation for suicide rates!
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
When I first read that statistic, I also thought, “well, gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that we have such a low incidence of child smokers in the first place, so not much in the way of preventative measures are needed?”
But whatever the statistic, it seems there are a multitude of ways to twist it to make any particular point.
So if the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids wants us to take their comparisons seriously, they should give background behind the statistics rather than raw, seemingly disconnected numbers.