The Decline of Menthol Cigarette Smoking in Australia, 1980-2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Concerns have been expressed that menthol cigarettes are highly conducive to uptake and hence function as "starter cigarettes" for adolescents. There is strong evidence for this in the United States. If menthol cigarettes are critical to uptake for some adolescents, they might be expected to remain popular among adolescents independent of promotional activity. We analyzed trends in the market share of menthol brands in Australia among both adolescents and adults to provide further insights into the determinants of menthol cigarette smoking. METHODS: We used the Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey (1984-2008), the Smoking and Health Survey (1980-1998), and the International Tobacco Control Four Nations Survey (2002-2008) to estimate market share of brands. Measures were reported use of all menthol brands for adults and use of the Alpine brand for adolescents. RESULTS: Menthol smoking was much more popular among female smokers of all age groups in the early 1980s. During the 1980s and 1990s, use declined markedly in the 18-29 age groups, while remaining relatively stable among older smokers. Use of Alpine declined markedly among adolescents in the 1980s and 1990s. However, during this period, Alpine remained more popular among experimenting than regular smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Both Alpine and other menthol brands are now primarily "older women's cigarettes" in Australia. The trends in declining popularity among younger smokers suggest that targeted marketing plays a major role in determining menthol brand market share. Alpine has played a role as a "starter" cigarette in Australia but that role has decreased markedly since the 1980s. Within the Australian context, "light/mild" brands may have taken over the role of easier-to-smoke cigarettes that attract experimenting smokers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".