Another factor in high rates of smoking by Native Americans may be related to the cost – cigarettes are much cheaper for them. Around here in Minnesota, they are sold on the reservations without the Federal and the State tobacco taxes and fees. So this cuts the price to about half of the normal price. So this may contribute to increased cigarette addiction among Native Americans.
Considering American Indians and Native Alaskans represent less than 1% of our total population, I doubt there would be a widespread marketing campaign. Also, this segment is already hooked. No need to market to them.
Statistically the vast majority of US presidents are white men. But wait, Obama isn’t white so obviously that statistic is wrong!
This may be the most non-GQ GQ thread ever. I think we’re batting about .100 for factual answers.
But we’re batting at least .750 on defensiveness from smokers.
So we’ve learned something…
Yeah, I was being serious, but I was just throwing that out there as a factoid, not making any value judgement on it. The distinction between sacred and secular tobacco is fairly blurred at this point, as far as I know.
Yepper. The worship of anecdotes in this thread is dumbfounding.
*…Smokers can’t be generally less educated than non-smokers because Obama smokes? *What?
The only reason someone would request statical info on smokers is because they want to feel superior? What?
I hope this doesn’t usher in a new era of answering General Question by attacking the motives of the questioner, or claiming that exceptions make all statistical information invalid.
But to answer the OP, I’ve got no links to statistical studies comparing smokers to nonsmokers. Sorry.
I am also anti-smoking. I think you’re right about them having less money than non-smokers. After all, cigarettes are expensive:D
Why do you assume smokers are more religious? I would assume they would be less religious.
Actually, upon rereading the OP, I suppose a lot of that defensiveness might have been forestalled if it hadn’t begun with the words “I am admittedly biased against smokers”. I think that started things off on an unfortunate note. Imagine if someone started a GQ thread with “I am admittedly biased against black people and I am wondering if the things I think about them are true…”. Things might get a bit cluttered after that.
Not completely sure. Maybe because I think that religious people feel free to reject science, feel free to believe what their heart/soul/gut tells them to believe, enjoy thinking of themselves as engaged in a noble struggle to behave less sinfully in a sinful world (instead of a value-free world in which they have responsibility for and control over their lives)…maybe just because I don’t understand why someone would be religious and I don’t get why people smoke (though I used to smoke two packs of Newports a day and attend religious services regularly myself until I got wise.) Haven’t thought much of this out thoroughly–that’s why I describe my feelings as biases here.
Why do you think they’re more likely to be non-religious?
According to Gallop, smokers, ON AVERAGE, have less education and lower incomes. I considered this so glaringly obvious that no one except dopers could possibly argue about it.
Yeah, but my friend’s daughter’s teacher’s sister smokes and she has a degree from Community College and a regular income from the Piggley-wiggley, so Gallup must be wrong…
Point of fact: Only to those who lived where it grew well. Others, such as mid-west or mid-atlantic US tribes, or north and west of those, not so much. I’m part Iroquois (specifically Mohawk). It wasn’t very important to them religiously or culturally (assuming you want to separate those two). Their tobacco consumption would not be influenced by “traditional culture”.
Having seen many posts by you, I would speculate that, compared to you, the answer is “No” to all of those. But that’s just a semi-informed guess.YMMV.
[brackets editorially added, by me, to make the quote make more sense, as included, because “[sic]” wouldn’t work. (Come on, PRR, you should be able to do better than this. I’ve seen you do it.)]
No, it wouldn’t matter much to them. They need to hook new users, to increase the market. If your theory were correct, they would be fighting for “market share”, not actual total numbers of users. If the culture encourages tobacco use, they would only be concerned with what brand one buys. They would have no interest in hooking new users.
ETA: In the time that it took me to write this, an entire new page shows up. I may need to alter or retract something I said…
DUUUDE! Why didn’t you SAY you were a Newport smoker (even former)… That’s MY brand… I would have TOTALLY given you a pass on your other shit…
OK, never mind. You lost me, here. DIE, INFIDEL!
With an opening like this, I am amazed by your amazement. Of course some took offense. Whether you meant it or not, your post was antagonistic.
When you are questioning another’s intelligence, you should proofread before posting.
You think I’m better advised NOT to admit my biases (which drive the GQ) and pretend to be neutral on the subject? Don’t you think I’d get a lot of “Oh, yeah? Why the interest? Are you secretly anti-smoker?” etc. responses? The admission of bias was in the interest of defusing my own personal agenda. If I admit to it upfront, no one can reasonably accuse me of keeping my agenda (which has nothing to do with the factual information sought) hidden. Maybe this part of this thread needs to go into another thread elsewhere.
But until it does, I have to say the level of defensiveness here continues to amaze even me. The guy who claimed that I was 0-for-9 (forgetting that I asserted that I have a “zillion” other biases that I did not name–so he could have as well have claimed that I was 0-for-a-zillion) actually included in his ludicrous claim the fact that drove an SUV. Since all I claimed was that smokers “drove different cars” from non-smokers, how does driving an SUV prove anything? (Actually, an SUV was what I imagined in my biased thinking smokers probably did drive, SUVs being your whoreson gas-guzzlers, polluters, wasteful vehicles etc. .) Or that he lives in a different part of the country, when obviously I was referring to the U.S., where as noted it seems to be simply factual that there are clear regional differences in smokers. But that doesn’t seem to address the larger question of how it makes any sense to provide personal anecdotes “refuting” the larger demographic GQ I’m asking, especially in light of the repeated reminders (not all from me) that personal anecdotes are entirely irrelevant to answering (or even responding to) the GQ. As I said, they only serve to confirm the defensiveness of smokers, and nothing more, so if you want to reinforce that impression, then please keep providing more personal anecdotes. If not, then not.
I don’t understand why the level of defensiveness should surprise you, you just lumped a bunch of people on this board into a group and stated ‘this is what I think you are like!’. Yes, I know from a statistical point of view many of your statements were correct, but I don’t think you can be surprised when people get a bit pissed off about it. You could have included in your OP that “I apologise in advance since I realise that this is not true for all smokers but I am more interested in the statistical trends regarding smokers”. In a similar manner you could have included the line “I am only interested in trends in US” that would have helped clear things up immensely, if you don’t specify these things then don’t get defensive yourself when people respond from their point of view.
I read your OP as analogous to starting an OP saying “Americans are fat!”. It’s true statistically that the majority of Americans are overweight (I believe around 65% at the moment) but there are better ways of putting it if you want to ask a question around the subject 
Does that make some sort of sense?
I hereby apologize in advance for anything I might say, do, believe, or think at any point in the future. Also for being alive–I would do anything I possibly could do to prevent this.
Okay, okay, fair point…the listeners are also at fault for interpreting the post badly too
I think you need a smoke break. Here, you can have the rest of mine…I just quit a week ago, am poor, under-eductaed, LOVE Fox News, am a fundamentalist Christian, am the proud owner of a veritable smorgasbord of guns and GWB is my fucking hero.
Not necessarily. Actually I admire the straightforwardness. The reason I made my observation was simply that, at first, I was totally baffled by the way things had gone in this thread… then I stopped to consider how I might feel if I were to read a post in which the person started by saying they were biased against me, and it all made a bit more sense. I still think the response has been a little over the top for GQ, but at least I can now see it as a (somewhat) understandable consequence of the choice you made.