Support for Minimum Legal Sales Age Laws Set to Age 21 Across Australia, Canada, England, and United States: Findings From the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the United States has seen a rapid increase in tobacco minimum legal sales age (MLSA) laws set to age 21, there is wide variation across high-income countries and less is known about policy support outside of the United States. We examined the prevalence of support for tobacco MLSA 21 laws as well as associations by sociodemographic, smoking, and household characteristics among current and former adult smokers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used the 2018 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey to examine support for MLSA 21 laws among 12 904 respondents from Australia, Canada, England, and United States. RESULTS: Support for raising the legal age of purchasing cigarettes/tobacco to 21 ranged from 62.2% in the United States to 70.8% in Canada. Endorsement also varied by age, such that 40.6% of 18-20 years old supported the policy compared with 69.3% of those aged ≥60 years. In the adjusted regression model, there was also higher support among respondents who were female than male, non-white than white, those who did not allow smoking in the household than those that did, and those who had children in the household than those that did not. There were no differences by household income, education, or smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: Most current and former smokers, including a sizable minority of those aged ≤20 years, support raising the legal age of purchasing cigarettes/tobacco to 21. IMPLICATIONS: There was strong support for MLSA 21 laws among smokers and former smokers across Australia, Canada, England, and the United States, providing evidence for the increasing public support of the passage of these laws beyond the United States.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".