Fudging statistics, tobacco control style

There is a whole secondary approach being deployed by those in various sockpuppet tobacco control charities across the pond with our dear American friends, all intent on reducing tobacco prevalence and protecting youth. Their grandiose plan is to *ahem* raise the legal age of sale from 18 to 21. That’s it. They completely ignore the fact that there are age restrictions already in place, albeit terribly enforced by the local authorities (as is the case everywhere else).

This is typically a case of “got to be seen to be doing something” about the use of tobacco amongst American U18s, without actually doing anything to correct the actual problem which is one of enforcement. So why the buzzy bee in their collective bonnets about raising the age of sale to 21 instead of 18? An internet survey where just over 4,200 U18’s completed a simple questionnaire which has magically become the phrase “x percent of Americans” or “x percent of smokers” all based on a pretty pathetic, small-scale survey which doesn’t even represent a tiny proportion of the US population (which was, as of 2014 approximately 320 Million).

This one survey, similar to the last-ditch YouGov survey on the plain packaging debacle in the UK where the number of those against plain packs suddenly dwindled, is the reason there is a crusade to raise the age of sale from 18 to 21 across the United States. If there was more than one, maybe one from each State it might be slightly more acceptable to base a nationwide campaign on. Admittedly, there are other “studies” they base this campaign on, this one being the latest.

From the study:

Efforts to disrupt tobacco sales to minors through age of sale restrictions can contribute to reductions in youth tobacco use. The objective of this study was to assess attitudes toward raising the minimum tobacco age of sale to 21 years among U.S. adults.

As far as I know, the existing age restrictions on tobacco sales has been in place for a while and hasn’t made a significant impact to tobacco prevalence at all. In fact the data from the CDC suggests that teen cigarette use was 15.8% with the age of sale being 18. Good to know those restrictions work isn’t it? So now the plan is to again increase the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 21, based solely on a single internet survey.

Which of course leads to statements from state funded sockpuppets such as this, who wants to bet that some of the cash revenue from tobacco tax goes to these folks? Not a bet I’m going to take.

So it begs the question, is the “70% of current smokers” being in favor of raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 actually correct?

Frankly, no it isn’t. Which is hardly surprising. It can be interpreted the way it’s stated, but in reality it’s utterly misleading.

Respondents were asked: Do you favor or oppose raising the legal minimum age to purchase all tobacco products from 18 to 21? Responses included: strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, and strongly oppose.

Oh joy another multiple choice question, this time with two supposed “positives” and two supposed “negatives”. The trouble with a “somewhat” answer is the fact that it’s pretty wishy-washy, it’s not a definitive “yes” or “no” answer. It’s like asking someone for a score out of 10, with 10 being “strongly favor” and 1 being “strongly oppose”, it’s a gradual scale and pretty useless in the context of being supportive or not.

If a question such as “do you favor or oppose” a particular proposal, especially in a council meeting or other official and legal environment, the answer must be either favor or oppose, being “on the fence” is abstaining, or have no view.

Data came from Styles, which draws from KnowledgePanel, an online panel recruited using probability-based sampling to reach respondents regardless of landline phone or Internet access.

In 2014, a total of 4,269 participants completed Summer Styles (June–July), yielding a 69% response rate.

As with YouGov here in the UK, Styles selects participants based on certain criteria, either an exact match based on previous surveys or a loose match based on generalised interests in particular subjects. In this case 4,269 participants have either taken surveys on tobacco restrictions or similar subjects in the past and those were “randomised” based on location so you would expect a pretty wide net has been cast across the US for this survey to gain a snapshot insight into the current thinking of the average US citizen that is part of KnowledgePanel or Styles.

This is a clear case of selection bias where participants are more likely to take part in the survey because it either directly affects them, or is a subject that they have a strong interest in. You could of course say the same about the Vaping Truth Survey most of the participants of that have an interest in vaping, or are vapers themselves. Sadly, selection bias is part and parcel of most surveys simply because if you don’t have any interest in the subject, you don’t take the survey it is that simple. However, surveys designed for a specific subset of participants can be useful in determining a generalised “feel” on a subject so long as it is clear that the bias exists.

The study based on the survey indicates this in the limitations:

although Styles draws from a panel that has a nationally representative sample, it does not recruit using population-based probability samples.

self-reported smoking status could lead to reporting bias; however, the validity of self-reported smoking is established

Finally, state-level estimates could not be calculated.

Based on that, the survey doesn’t represent the views of the population in general, has flaws with self-reporting and estimates applicable to State level populations couldn’t be calculated. Yet, unsurprisingly the statistics are being bandied about as if they were gospel and representative, which they clearly are not.

Respondents who selected strongly favor or somewhat favor were considered to favor raising the minimum age of sale. Assessed sociodemographics included sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, income, U.S. region, and cigarette smoking status.

Out of the four possible answers, it didn’t matter if you responded with “strongly favor” or “somewhat favor” the answer would be marked down as “in favor”. Need I repeat the definition of “somewhat” again?

The results speak for themselves, somewhat:

Three quarters of adults strongly or somewhat favored raising the minimum age of sale to 21 years, whereas 14.0% and 11.0% indicated they somewhat or strongly opposed it

At least, that’s how the authors interpreted the statistics. They claim, categorically that 75% of the number of respondents are in favor of the proposed age increase but go to great pains to segment the “somewhat opposed” and “strongly opposed” results; which by the way equate to 25%.

Is Tobacco21 correct? Statistically no.

  • Overall : 4,219 Participants
  • Strongly in favor: 50.4%
  • Somewhat in favor: 24.6%
  • Somewhat opposed: 14 %
  • Strongly opposed: 11%

Here’s the kicker, the vast majority in favor (using the author’s definition) are never smokers. The puritanical nanny’s that love to suck the fun out of life.

This is where it also gets interesting, and frankly highlights the statistical fudgery that Tobacco21 rely upon to mislead the general public.

  • Never Smokers, 2,254 (55.5% of total participants)
  • Former Smokers, 1,236 (30.3% of total participants)
  • Current Smokers, 585 (14.4% of total participants)

Tobacco21 are claiming that 70% of smokers are in favor of the age increase, but the proportion of current smokers within the survey results is hardly proportionate compared to the 2,254 never-smoker participants. Remember, the majority of never-smokers anywhere in the world have been socially trained by these sockpuppet charities and decades of tobacco control to demonise and stigmatise anyone who smokes.

Also, remember that the “somewhat” answers are statistically meaningless, like putting “None of the above” on a UK Ballot Paper. It’s an answer, but not a particularly meaningful one unless you need to bolster statistics elsewhere.

In truth, it’s only 43.3% of current smokers (256 participants) that, at the time of the survey stated they supported the age increase, whilst the “maybes” (256 in total combining the somewhat favor and somewhat oppose percentiles (43.8%)) with a small (72) percentage (12.4) strongly opposing the proposal, not the “70%” that Tobacco21 are claiming.

By adding the two “in favor” statistics, (256.23 strongly in favor & 152.685 somewhat in favor) you get 408.915 participants “in favor” which is (drumroll please) 69.9% and why not, let’s drop the decimal point and round it up hey?

Just for fun, the percentages based on total participants (regardless of smoking status):

  • Strongly in favor, 2078 (49.25%)
  • Somewhat in favor, 999 (23.69%)
  • Somewhat opposed, 571 (13.54%)
  • Strongly opposed, 428 (10.14%)

Let’s mash-up the “in favor” numbers, just as Tobacco21 would do:

  • In favor, 3077 (72.9%)
  • Opposed, 999 (23.67%)

There you go, looks like my future as a tobacco control statistics fudger is set.

Related Post

8 thoughts on “Fudging statistics, tobacco control style


    Just as Mike pointed out they word their polls to get the outcome they want and here they openly admit as much:

    Reliable Opinion Pollsters Public opinion polls are an effective way to deliver the message to politicians that the public supports strong enforcement. The most effective messengers to deliver that news are professional pollsters. Of course, professional poll takers cost money, so if this is not possible, we can conduct our own surveys. We need to think carefully how to phrase our questions. “Do you think smokers should be heavily fined for smoking in public places?” may, for instance, get less support than the question “Do you think our law protecting children and other nonsmokers from smoke in public places should be properly enforced?” While the first question focuses on punishing the smoker, the second fixes on enforcing an existing law. Stronger still may be questions that also focus on the rights of children and other nonsmokers to be protected from smoke.

  2. ……….Now how can We believe CDC numbers on smoking rates when even the Federal Government knows they are UNRELIABLE!

    Survey experts agree that survey respondents understate the true extent of their cigarette consumption. If taken as true, the responses in the surveys we examined, would suggest that, on average, only 70 percent of purchased cigarettes were reported to be actually consumed, which strains credulity. The substantial uncertainty surrounding the degree of underreporting of cigarette consumption in survey data necessarily generates large uncertainty about the magnitude of the federal tax receipts lost due to the illicit cigarette trade. Any estimate of federal tax loss based on survey data therefore should be regarded as only broadly indicative of actual receipts lost.4

  3. ………….OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”


    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  4. ………The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

    Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.


  5. Excellent exposition of how tobacco control lies and manipulates data to create the perception that a majority supports prohibition of smoking and tobacco use. Rather than statistics, this should be called by its true name: propaganda and disinformation.

    1. Sadly it is a common theme in any and all “messages” from the nannying sockpuppets, what makes it worse is that the raw information isn’t always available or most folks don’t realise how badly interpreted or exaggerated the figures are.

Comments are closed.