476 



-34- 



profile of Cbose who curr^ncly snoke « low c«r brand (I.e. 11 ag t«r 

 delivery and 1«m) and those vto formerly tookcd a low tar brand but 

 DO longer do^. The information la given in Table 11. 



The colufflQ J^aded "current ♦ former smokers" represents those who, 

 at one time or another, have been sufficiently attracted to a low tar 

 brand to smoke it regularly. It is seen that 22Z of the total sample 

 comes into this category, and that the percentage is much the same across 

 the various age and social class froopings. Even among the heaviest 

 smokers as many as 17Z have, at some time, smoked a low tar brand , 

 regularly. Concern for health, on the dther hand, does seem to exert 

 some itvfluence in the direction of smoking low tar brands. Among the 

 clusters ~ST)ffle fairly appreciable differences a'f^ apparent, although their 

 explanation d^ not be imokcdiately obvious: Clustel^3 and 4 show the 

 greatest tendency' to take up, albeit temporarily, a lo^^ar brand. 

 Cluster 5 shows the lekat. 



The columns headed "eurrent smokers" and "former smokers" present 

 a rather different picture.' "<!l^rrent smokers" one assumes are those 

 vbo, in the main, are sufficiently "satisfied with a low tar brand to 

 continue smoking it. "Former smokers^ 4tave presumably failed to be 

 sufficiently satisfied with a low tar brai^ and have switched to a brand 

 of higher tar delivery. The first point to Notice is that only a minority 

 of those who have tried a low tar brand have conclmied with it: out of 

 the total sample only 62 currently smoke a low tar br«d, as against a 



/ 



further 16Z who have tried one for a period and then switc]t)«d to something 

 higher. The profile of current smokers seems fairly logical: they are 

 more likely to be concerned about health, aged 35 or over, to belong 



^ BW-W2-01620 



