9 ms·

I’m extremely in favor of harm-reduction legislation in general, and I think this ban is a good idea overall. Flavors are effective at hooking young people in p

by ketzo 6y ago

I’m extremely in favor of harm-reduction legislation in general, and I think this ban is a good idea overall. Flavors are effective at hooking young people in particular — lots of vaping research has shown that — and so get it outta here. Great. But man, “ban menthols because Black people like them” sure feels a little weird. Like, I get that’s not exactly what’s going on. But.. it’s a little bit what’s going on? I guess it’s just worth watching closely any time someone talks about protecting disadvantaged groups. I think that is actually what’s happening here, but it’s suuuuch a short rhetorical jump to “well, the under classes can’t be trusted with lottery tickets!” and so on. Edit: just to make it abundantly clear: I don't think the FDA is actually banning menthols because Black people enjoy them. But I think their reasoning isn't too far from that, and it's worth being watchful for that sort of paternalism, IMO.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 6y ago
Well, that's the same Libertarian argument whether black people are involved or not. Every vice is something that people like. That's what the concept of a vice means, as opposed to diseases, crimes, or tragedies. The "is it paternalistic to change other people's willful behavior" question is one that has dogged every prohibition debate since time immemorial.
atlasunshrugged 6y ago
Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the government wanting to protect the health of folks (or if you're a cynic like me, making sure that citizens are productive for longer and don't use as many healthcare resources) but this feels super paternalistic. Why not just dramatically increase the taxes so people can still choose to pay a high price if they want to?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >Why not just dramatically increase the taxes so people can still choose to pay a high price if they want to? If you increased the taxes enough to change behavior, that would imply that people who wanted to smoke were made unable to. If all the people who want Menthols after your tax increase can still afford them, then it would not stop them, by definition. Consequently, vice taxes are always either ineffectual, or a ban that only applies to the poor.
  - atlasunshrugged 6y ago
    Yeah I mean if you increase prices 1000x it would have that effect but if you increase them closer to what a place like NZ or Aus does (I think like ~75%, it's been a while since I studied this stuff then the cost is offputting for many but it means that the societal costs aren't externalized onto nonsmokers in the form of additional healthcare burden and the like. There's lots of arguments about pigouvian taxes and whether they hurt the poor, but generally they are effective at stopping usage up to a point (as in there is strong correlation between an increase in tax and decrease in usage) and the benefits usually outweigh the costs even for the poor. Patricio Marquez from the World Bank has a bunch of great reports that break this down, often on a country by country basis. CTFK also has info but is a little paternalistic but I really like tobacconomics reports https://tobacconomics.org/ https://tobacconomics.org/
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - filoleg 6y ago
      Agreed with your premise in full. Increasing the price isn't necessarily about making it inaccessible to people so they stop smoking (though it is a minor part of it that is a nice side-effect), it is to make sure that the additional burden placed on the healthcare system by those people is balanced out by taxes paid in form of increased prices on tobacco products. If people don't stop smoking, then might as well make sure they cover the extra cost they add to the healthcare system. Seems pretty fair. To be clear, this statement I made has nothing to with my views on the specific menthol ban in question, as I am still not sure how I feel about it. I was just discussing the hypothetical non-existent strategy of just more taxing on tobacco products instead of outright banning them.
LargeWu 6y ago
I think a more accurate way of framing it is "Menthols have been targeted specifically to black people, and also, they're even more harmful than regular cigarettes". It's definitely not "let's take this away because black people like it".
- ketzo 6y ago
  That’s actually a solid point. There’s extra responsibility to prevent harm to specific groups when the harm has been targeted at them specifically. And yeah, I know that’s not actually the message. But as I read it, “banning menthols because they disproportionately harm underrepresented groups” is not so semantically different from the other version. I mostly think it’s an area where we should all have our eyes peeled, basically. Like I said, I’m fully in agreement with this decision. Just hits my “maybe weird?” radar.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  How are menthol cigarettes more harmful than regular ones? The menthol just makes it easier to smoke more. Is that the crux of your argument? I find the “company X is targeting [arbitrary subcategory]” argument to be totally asinine btw. Is Krispy Kreme targeting fat people by offering free donuts for people that get COVID-19 vaccines? Lastly there is nothing more patronizing than telling a black person that you’re preventing them from buying menthol cigarettes for their own good. Man I hate the whole “safety culture” crowd. I find it such an insufferable ideology. But then again I’m explicitly not a collectivist so that’s par for the course.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    > Is Krispy Kreme targeting fat people by offering free donuts for people that get COVID-19 vaccines? LOL are they really doing that? That's funny considering that obesity and diabetes are both risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      Welcome to the new world ;) https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7ny.com/amp/free-food-vaccine-deals-for-vaccinated-people-covid-vaccines-budweiser-beer/10544130/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7ny.com/amp/free-food-vaccin... You actually get a donut per day! The foundation of a healthy diet.
bobbyi_settv 6y ago
As the press release says, menthol was "the last allowable flavor". It's not the government banning one specific flavor because it is popular with black people. It is the government first banning every flavor except the one popular with black people and now circling back to make the rules uniform.
- austincheney 6y ago
  No, the press release does specifically target black people: > One studyExternal Link Disclaimer suggests that banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S. would lead an additional 923,000 smokers to quit, including 230,000 African Americans in the first 13 to 17 months after a ban goes into effect. An earlier studyExternal Link Disclaimer projected that about 633,000 deaths would be averted, including about 237,000 deaths averted for African Americans. Then they go on to rationalize those positions about African Americans because that progress hasn’t been experienced by everyone equally. I am not stating any position whether specifically targeting black people in this ban is good or bad. I am only pointing out that this group is specifically mentioned in the press release.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Yes, the press release highlights the racial disparities resulting from the previous, and blatantly racist, exclusion of menthols fron the general ban on characterizing flavors.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      That’s a non sequitur. The data suggests, as mentioned in the press release, African Americans disproportionately favor menthol flavored cigarettes. Failing to ban such previously is unfortunate but not racist and certainly not blatantly racist unless there was intent to disproportionately harm African Americans. Prior intent was not mentioned in the press release.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
ralusek 6y ago
Harm reduction? Why not ban alcohol? Why not cap cars at 55mph? People have lost money in the stock market, so I assume you'd like that banned as well. What is your limiting principle?
- ketzo 6y ago
  I mean, the short answer is risk vs. reward. Smoking is insanely bad for you, very addictive, and the benefits are, uh, marginal. To walk down your list: - Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. This comes the closest, though. - Cars have lots of places where they can be safely operated above that speed, and fast travel has lots of benefits. - The potential benefits of the stock market are fairly obvious. The risks are extremely, immediately obvious, including to the person doing the money-losing.
  - donatj 6y ago
    > Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. Tobacco can be consumed in moderation. I'll smoke a Wood Tip Wine Black and Mild about once a month, and my pipe on an occasional beautiful day. The benefits are the extreme joy it brings me. It's one of my favorite things in life, and they're going to take it away. Nicotine is amazingly pleasant and performance boosting unlike alternatives. A good read: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
- catillac 6y ago
  All of these things are okay in moderation and have some driving principle that weighs cost versus benefit. Same with cigarettes. Hugely harmful with a long tail of harmfulness and external effects on society with little or no gain. Seems like a good risk analysis to me in this case.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    This ban also includes flavored cigars, which most users only smoke occasionally. But even so, why is society bothered with someone's individual choice to smoke a menthol cigarette away from others? I don't see the "external effects" you're alluding to, so it feels like the "long tail" is small in magnitude. If I have to take a guess, you might be thinking of healthcare costs and having to subsidize smokers. But if that's a concern, I feel we should avoid universal healthcare proposals (like Medicare for All) and instead let people choose what insurance coverage they want from private companies, from a menu of choices, so that they pay for what the coverage they want based on who they are and the habits they have. I suggest this path because everyone has a different idea about what they want covered. Some may not want to subsidize smokers, some may not want to subsidize abortions, some may not want to subsidize healthcare for the obese, some may not want to subsidize puberty blockers for children, and so on. Ultimately, all of this is leading us back to what I feel the US got right in the past - favoring choice, control, and responsibility at the individual level instead of increased government size, regulation, and paternalism.
lmartel 6y ago
You can make the opposite point with the same logic though: "the powerful, dangerous tobacco industry was given a loophole in the flavored cigarette ban allowing them to prey disproportionately on vulnerable Black populations."
duped 6y ago
I heard a former tobacco marketer say once that the only thing that sells cigarettes is a sign that says "OPEN." A more effective harm reduction strategy would be to make the things more expensive and inconvenient to purchase. But that's a harder sell than banning flavored tobacco products. Meanwhile, alcohol comes in numerous pleasant and sweet varieties and you can buy cookies with enough THC to knock out an elephant. It's a bit of a double standard to go after tobacco products, even if they have fewer redeeming qualities and low potential for responsible use.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> But man, “ban menthols because Black people like them” sure feels a little weird. > Like, I get that’s not exactly what’s going on. But.. it’s a little bit what’s going on? Like other flavors have been, they are banned because of the youth impact. The racial skew, and whose youth regulators previously were and weren’t concerned about, is why menthols were previously excluded from the flavor ban, but its kind of weird to call out eliminating the racially-motivated discrepancy as a problem.
gburdell3 6y ago
Flavors aren't effective at hooking young people, nicotine is. Nobody smokes because it tastes good, menthol or not. This is just another ban that makes some people feel good about themselves while pissing off the rest. I lean pretty far left, but this is the kind of meaningless ban that makes people hate Democrats.
- jolux 6y ago
  >Nobody smokes because it tastes good, menthol or not. I was just talking with some online friends yesterday who smoke and say they would never have started if it weren't for menthols, so I think you're wrong about this.
  - olyjohn 6y ago
    Yes but most cigarettes are not menthols. And a good portion of the people I know who smoke hate menthols... so there's that anecdote. I only know one person who smokes menthols, and the rest just smoke regular cigarettes and did not start by smoking menthols.
    - jolux 6y ago
      It might not be what gets the majority of people, but clearly it gets some, and the parent said "nobody." I will also note that my friends started when they were teens and no longer smoke menthols.
- jmcgough 6y ago
  Part of the argument for this is that Menthol actually makes it less harsh on your throat, so it's easier for new smokers to start with Menthols.
- bsder 6y ago
  > Flavors aren't effective at hooking young people, nicotine is. Wrong. Flavors are simply really effective at hooking everybody. I watched this with a friend of mine who absolutely thought the same way as you. We got him a couple different flavored ones to try--all non-nicotine. His reaction: "Alright, you win. You have to physically take the strawberry ones away as I will absolutely drain them all." The flavors allow the industry to find the one that you personally find agreeable. Add nicotine on top of that and you have a device for personalized maximal addiction.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jolux 6y ago
Probably important to note that this was being pushed for by a lot of Black health organizations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/16/civil-rights-groups-demand-ban-menthol-cigarettes/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/16/civil-right...
the_lonely_road 6y ago
I don’t buy into the ban having racist roots but I am concerned about the result of the ban increasing race problems. There was a famous case in the past few years of a big black guy being killed during a police interaction and the underlying reason for the interaction was that he was selling loose cigarettes on the street. Prohibition and the failed drug war have shown us that making something illegal won’t stop demand or supply. So now a bunch of black people who are physically hooked on a specific product are going to have it taken away (I smoked, it was a nightmare fight to quit) and for sure people are going to start selling bootleg product (unless menthol can’t be bootlegged, I know nothing about the creation of this product) and most of them will be black since most of the menthol demand is in black communities. Unless the police don’t intend to try and stop this we would expect it to increase the amount of police interactions and then naturally increase the number of violent interactions leading to death.
- ksherlock 6y ago
  Eric Garner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner
- jimmygrapes 6y ago
  >unless menthols can't be duplicated A drop of mint flavoring from the baking aisle at the nearest store on the filter, and a few drops on the unflavored pipe tobacco. It ain't the same, but nobody's gonna complain when the alternative is raw.
bluecalm 6y ago
I mean who cares? There is approximately 0% black people in my country. When menthols got banned some people who liked them got annoyed. Just don't let the crazies make everything about race. About all policies are going affect some demographics more than other. Banning menthol cigarettes is an easy choice if you accept some paternalistic policies. Big win for little cost.
sebow 6y ago
Let's jump straight into identity politics because certain extra stats(like all studies/decisions have) are given. I'm assuming you know this, but just in case: projecting like this then complaining about "racial" anything has the exactly opposite effect you'd want.
LeifCarrotson 6y ago
It's basically the opposite of what's going on, but simultaneously looks really similar. The article says: > ...address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ+ individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products So yes, one motivation for an action like this is that an enemy against those groups wants to deprive them of something that they use more than others. Another motivation for the exact same action is that an ally aligned with those groups wants to remove something that harms them more than others. Unfortunately, intent is hard to measure, and the behavior is very similar. I think one of the key differentiators is whether that removal extends only to the class being 'protected' or whether it extends to everyone. To extend your hypothetical example, if people without a high school diploma were prevented from purchasing lottery tickets, and those with college degrees (like the people passing the legislation and their peers) were allowed to buy them at a discount rate, that would indicate malicious intent and discrimination against those who are less educated. On the other hand, if you take away lotto tickets from everyone, including depriving yourself of the ability to buy them, because they're universally bad and also because they cause an unusually high degree of harm to those with less education, that looks more like benevolent motivation. Of course, if you didn't buy them in the first place then your sacrifice doesn't mean as much...
- ketzo 6y ago
  > I think one of the key differentiators is whether that removal extends only to the class being 'protected' or whether it extends to everyone. Very, very good point. It's not the only measure, I think, but it's certainly one of the big ones.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  >>On the other hand, if you take away lotto tickets from everyone, including depriving yourself of the ability to buy them, because they're universally bad and also because they cause an unusually high degree of harm to those with less education, that looks more like benevolent motivation. Of course, if you didn't buy them in the first place then your sacrifice doesn't mean as much... This point raises a third issue: should one at all submit to the whims of the crab bucket , the benevolence of its motives notwithstanding?
busymom0 6y ago
> But man, “ban menthols because Black people like them” sure feels a little weird. Because it's patronizing and soft bigotry of low expectations - something most of these policies either are ignorant towards or is the exact intention. It's a fact that menthol cigarettes attract youth. It's also a fact that "On average, African Americans initiate smoking at a later age compared to Whites." and "African Americans smoke fewer cigarettes per day": https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-americans/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-americans/in... So most adult blacks are making conscious decisions themselves to start smoking when they are adults. And since 86% of blacks and 46% of hispanics prefer menthol cigarettes over regular ones, the adults enjoy that flavour. But this ban is patronizing them as if the adult blacks are too stupid to think for themselves, so the politicians must treat them as they treat kids and make the decisions to take away bad things from them. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-components/menthol-and-other-flavors-tobacco-products https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-co... Instead of making changes so that youth can't get a hand on it, they are banning it because according to their own set standards, somehow adult blacks and hispanics are unable to think for themselves. Anecdotal but when I immigrated, it was the patronizing comments and policies which I found the most "offensive". It's like being treated as kids instead of grown adults who can make decisions and achieve great things on my own. Also this ban will result in the same consequences as the "war on drugs" and weed bans. Intentionally or unintentionally, it will end up locking more blacks just like it happened in 1980s and 1990s. Saying this as someone who's neither touched a cigarette in my entire life, nor do I like the smell of it or weed. But I find any such overreach by the federal government to be useless with bad consequences. Better solutions would be to legalize weed, menthol cigarettes etc and put efforts towards stopping youth from getting their hands on them.
siruncledrew 6y ago
What's weird is the way the government decides to deliver these messages. Why do government responses have to be framed as "arm over your shoulder" do-gooder decisions rather than evidence-based decisions when there's already lots of data? IDK, maybe the "think of the children!" line and knee-deep assumptions of helping disadvantaged groups is all that's needed to stir government policy vs analyzing perspectives from a scientific approach. I mean, it's still good overall, and it's a net benefit to reduce long-term smoking.
casefields 6y ago
We can trace this paternalistic pattern towards blacks: https://streamable.com/1v4dmm https://streamable.com/1v4dmm

by ketzo 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

whatshisface 6y ago

Well, that's the same Libertarian argument whether black people are involved or not. Every vice is something that people like. That's what the concept of a vice means, as opposed to diseases, crimes, or tragedies. The "is it paternalistic to change other people's willful behavior" question is one that has dogged every prohibition debate since time immemorial.

atlasunshrugged 6y ago

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the government wanting to protect the health of folks (or if you're a cynic like me, making sure that citizens are productive for longer and don't use as many healthcare resources) but this feels super paternalistic. Why not just dramatically increase the taxes so people can still choose to pay a high price if they want to?

whatshisface 6y ago
>Why not just dramatically increase the taxes so people can still choose to pay a high price if they want to? If you increased the taxes enough to change behavior, that would imply that people who wanted to smoke were made unable to. If all the people who want Menthols after your tax increase can still afford them, then it would not stop them, by definition. Consequently, vice taxes are always either ineffectual, or a ban that only applies to the poor.
- atlasunshrugged 6y ago
  Yeah I mean if you increase prices 1000x it would have that effect but if you increase them closer to what a place like NZ or Aus does (I think like ~75%, it's been a while since I studied this stuff then the cost is offputting for many but it means that the societal costs aren't externalized onto nonsmokers in the form of additional healthcare burden and the like. There's lots of arguments about pigouvian taxes and whether they hurt the poor, but generally they are effective at stopping usage up to a point (as in there is strong correlation between an increase in tax and decrease in usage) and the benefits usually outweigh the costs even for the poor. Patricio Marquez from the World Bank has a bunch of great reports that break this down, often on a country by country basis. CTFK also has info but is a little paternalistic but I really like tobacconomics reports https://tobacconomics.org/ https://tobacconomics.org/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - filoleg 6y ago
    Agreed with your premise in full. Increasing the price isn't necessarily about making it inaccessible to people so they stop smoking (though it is a minor part of it that is a nice side-effect), it is to make sure that the additional burden placed on the healthcare system by those people is balanced out by taxes paid in form of increased prices on tobacco products. If people don't stop smoking, then might as well make sure they cover the extra cost they add to the healthcare system. Seems pretty fair. To be clear, this statement I made has nothing to with my views on the specific menthol ban in question, as I am still not sure how I feel about it. I was just discussing the hypothetical non-existent strategy of just more taxing on tobacco products instead of outright banning them.

LargeWu 6y ago

I think a more accurate way of framing it is "Menthols have been targeted specifically to black people, and also, they're even more harmful than regular cigarettes". It's definitely not "let's take this away because black people like it".

ketzo 6y ago
That’s actually a solid point. There’s extra responsibility to prevent harm to specific groups when the harm has been targeted at them specifically. And yeah, I know that’s not actually the message. But as I read it, “banning menthols because they disproportionately harm underrepresented groups” is not so semantically different from the other version. I mostly think it’s an area where we should all have our eyes peeled, basically. Like I said, I’m fully in agreement with this decision. Just hits my “maybe weird?” radar.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
How are menthol cigarettes more harmful than regular ones? The menthol just makes it easier to smoke more. Is that the crux of your argument? I find the “company X is targeting [arbitrary subcategory]” argument to be totally asinine btw. Is Krispy Kreme targeting fat people by offering free donuts for people that get COVID-19 vaccines? Lastly there is nothing more patronizing than telling a black person that you’re preventing them from buying menthol cigarettes for their own good. Man I hate the whole “safety culture” crowd. I find it such an insufferable ideology. But then again I’m explicitly not a collectivist so that’s par for the course.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  > Is Krispy Kreme targeting fat people by offering free donuts for people that get COVID-19 vaccines? LOL are they really doing that? That's funny considering that obesity and diabetes are both risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Welcome to the new world ;) https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7ny.com/amp/free-food-vaccine-deals-for-vaccinated-people-covid-vaccines-budweiser-beer/10544130/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7ny.com/amp/free-food-vaccin... You actually get a donut per day! The foundation of a healthy diet.

bobbyi_settv 6y ago

As the press release says, menthol was "the last allowable flavor". It's not the government banning one specific flavor because it is popular with black people. It is the government first banning every flavor except the one popular with black people and now circling back to make the rules uniform.

austincheney 6y ago
No, the press release does specifically target black people: > One studyExternal Link Disclaimer suggests that banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S. would lead an additional 923,000 smokers to quit, including 230,000 African Americans in the first 13 to 17 months after a ban goes into effect. An earlier studyExternal Link Disclaimer projected that about 633,000 deaths would be averted, including about 237,000 deaths averted for African Americans. Then they go on to rationalize those positions about African Americans because that progress hasn’t been experienced by everyone equally. I am not stating any position whether specifically targeting black people in this ban is good or bad. I am only pointing out that this group is specifically mentioned in the press release.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Yes, the press release highlights the racial disparities resulting from the previous, and blatantly racist, exclusion of menthols fron the general ban on characterizing flavors.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    That’s a non sequitur. The data suggests, as mentioned in the press release, African Americans disproportionately favor menthol flavored cigarettes. Failing to ban such previously is unfortunate but not racist and certainly not blatantly racist unless there was intent to disproportionately harm African Americans. Prior intent was not mentioned in the press release.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago

ralusek 6y ago

Harm reduction? Why not ban alcohol? Why not cap cars at 55mph? People have lost money in the stock market, so I assume you'd like that banned as well. What is your limiting principle?

ketzo 6y ago
I mean, the short answer is risk vs. reward. Smoking is insanely bad for you, very addictive, and the benefits are, uh, marginal. To walk down your list: - Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. This comes the closest, though. - Cars have lots of places where they can be safely operated above that speed, and fast travel has lots of benefits. - The potential benefits of the stock market are fairly obvious. The risks are extremely, immediately obvious, including to the person doing the money-losing.
- donatj 6y ago
  > Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. Tobacco can be consumed in moderation. I'll smoke a Wood Tip Wine Black and Mild about once a month, and my pipe on an occasional beautiful day. The benefits are the extreme joy it brings me. It's one of my favorite things in life, and they're going to take it away. Nicotine is amazingly pleasant and performance boosting unlike alternatives. A good read: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
catillac 6y ago
All of these things are okay in moderation and have some driving principle that weighs cost versus benefit. Same with cigarettes. Hugely harmful with a long tail of harmfulness and external effects on society with little or no gain. Seems like a good risk analysis to me in this case.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  This ban also includes flavored cigars, which most users only smoke occasionally. But even so, why is society bothered with someone's individual choice to smoke a menthol cigarette away from others? I don't see the "external effects" you're alluding to, so it feels like the "long tail" is small in magnitude. If I have to take a guess, you might be thinking of healthcare costs and having to subsidize smokers. But if that's a concern, I feel we should avoid universal healthcare proposals (like Medicare for All) and instead let people choose what insurance coverage they want from private companies, from a menu of choices, so that they pay for what the coverage they want based on who they are and the habits they have. I suggest this path because everyone has a different idea about what they want covered. Some may not want to subsidize smokers, some may not want to subsidize abortions, some may not want to subsidize healthcare for the obese, some may not want to subsidize puberty blockers for children, and so on. Ultimately, all of this is leading us back to what I feel the US got right in the past - favoring choice, control, and responsibility at the individual level instead of increased government size, regulation, and paternalism.

lmartel 6y ago

You can make the opposite point with the same logic though: "the powerful, dangerous tobacco industry was given a loophole in the flavored cigarette ban allowing them to prey disproportionately on vulnerable Black populations."

duped 6y ago

I heard a former tobacco marketer say once that the only thing that sells cigarettes is a sign that says "OPEN." A more effective harm reduction strategy would be to make the things more expensive and inconvenient to purchase. But that's a harder sell than banning flavored tobacco products. Meanwhile, alcohol comes in numerous pleasant and sweet varieties and you can buy cookies with enough THC to knock out an elephant. It's a bit of a double standard to go after tobacco products, even if they have fewer redeeming qualities and low potential for responsible use.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> But man, “ban menthols because Black people like them” sure feels a little weird. > Like, I get that’s not exactly what’s going on. But.. it’s a little bit what’s going on? Like other flavors have been, they are banned because of the youth impact. The racial skew, and whose youth regulators previously were and weren’t concerned about, is why menthols were previously excluded from the flavor ban, but its kind of weird to call out eliminating the racially-motivated discrepancy as a problem.

gburdell3 6y ago

Flavors aren't effective at hooking young people, nicotine is. Nobody smokes because it tastes good, menthol or not. This is just another ban that makes some people feel good about themselves while pissing off the rest. I lean pretty far left, but this is the kind of meaningless ban that makes people hate Democrats.

jolux 6y ago
>Nobody smokes because it tastes good, menthol or not. I was just talking with some online friends yesterday who smoke and say they would never have started if it weren't for menthols, so I think you're wrong about this.
- olyjohn 6y ago
  Yes but most cigarettes are not menthols. And a good portion of the people I know who smoke hate menthols... so there's that anecdote. I only know one person who smokes menthols, and the rest just smoke regular cigarettes and did not start by smoking menthols.
  - jolux 6y ago
    It might not be what gets the majority of people, but clearly it gets some, and the parent said "nobody." I will also note that my friends started when they were teens and no longer smoke menthols.
jmcgough 6y ago
Part of the argument for this is that Menthol actually makes it less harsh on your throat, so it's easier for new smokers to start with Menthols.
bsder 6y ago
> Flavors aren't effective at hooking young people, nicotine is. Wrong. Flavors are simply really effective at hooking everybody. I watched this with a friend of mine who absolutely thought the same way as you. We got him a couple different flavored ones to try--all non-nicotine. His reaction: "Alright, you win. You have to physically take the strawberry ones away as I will absolutely drain them all." The flavors allow the industry to find the one that you personally find agreeable. Add nicotine on top of that and you have a device for personalized maximal addiction.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jolux 6y ago

Probably important to note that this was being pushed for by a lot of Black health organizations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/16/civil-rights-groups-demand-ban-menthol-cigarettes/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/16/civil-right...

the_lonely_road 6y ago

I don’t buy into the ban having racist roots but I am concerned about the result of the ban increasing race problems. There was a famous case in the past few years of a big black guy being killed during a police interaction and the underlying reason for the interaction was that he was selling loose cigarettes on the street. Prohibition and the failed drug war have shown us that making something illegal won’t stop demand or supply. So now a bunch of black people who are physically hooked on a specific product are going to have it taken away (I smoked, it was a nightmare fight to quit) and for sure people are going to start selling bootleg product (unless menthol can’t be bootlegged, I know nothing about the creation of this product) and most of them will be black since most of the menthol demand is in black communities. Unless the police don’t intend to try and stop this we would expect it to increase the amount of police interactions and then naturally increase the number of violent interactions leading to death.

ksherlock 6y ago
Eric Garner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner
jimmygrapes 6y ago
>unless menthols can't be duplicated A drop of mint flavoring from the baking aisle at the nearest store on the filter, and a few drops on the unflavored pipe tobacco. It ain't the same, but nobody's gonna complain when the alternative is raw.

bluecalm 6y ago

I mean who cares? There is approximately 0% black people in my country. When menthols got banned some people who liked them got annoyed. Just don't let the crazies make everything about race. About all policies are going affect some demographics more than other. Banning menthol cigarettes is an easy choice if you accept some paternalistic policies. Big win for little cost.

sebow 6y ago

Let's jump straight into identity politics because certain extra stats(like all studies/decisions have) are given. I'm assuming you know this, but just in case: projecting like this then complaining about "racial" anything has the exactly opposite effect you'd want.

LeifCarrotson 6y ago

It's basically the opposite of what's going on, but simultaneously looks really similar. The article says: > ...address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ+ individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products So yes, one motivation for an action like this is that an enemy against those groups wants to deprive them of something that they use more than others. Another motivation for the exact same action is that an ally aligned with those groups wants to remove something that harms them more than others. Unfortunately, intent is hard to measure, and the behavior is very similar. I think one of the key differentiators is whether that removal extends only to the class being 'protected' or whether it extends to everyone. To extend your hypothetical example, if people without a high school diploma were prevented from purchasing lottery tickets, and those with college degrees (like the people passing the legislation and their peers) were allowed to buy them at a discount rate, that would indicate malicious intent and discrimination against those who are less educated. On the other hand, if you take away lotto tickets from everyone, including depriving yourself of the ability to buy them, because they're universally bad and also because they cause an unusually high degree of harm to those with less education, that looks more like benevolent motivation. Of course, if you didn't buy them in the first place then your sacrifice doesn't mean as much...

ketzo 6y ago
> I think one of the key differentiators is whether that removal extends only to the class being 'protected' or whether it extends to everyone. Very, very good point. It's not the only measure, I think, but it's certainly one of the big ones.
Dracophoenix 6y ago
>>On the other hand, if you take away lotto tickets from everyone, including depriving yourself of the ability to buy them, because they're universally bad and also because they cause an unusually high degree of harm to those with less education, that looks more like benevolent motivation. Of course, if you didn't buy them in the first place then your sacrifice doesn't mean as much... This point raises a third issue: should one at all submit to the whims of the crab bucket , the benevolence of its motives notwithstanding?

busymom0 6y ago

> But man, “ban menthols because Black people like them” sure feels a little weird. Because it's patronizing and soft bigotry of low expectations - something most of these policies either are ignorant towards or is the exact intention. It's a fact that menthol cigarettes attract youth. It's also a fact that "On average, African Americans initiate smoking at a later age compared to Whites." and "African Americans smoke fewer cigarettes per day": https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-americans/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-americans/in... So most adult blacks are making conscious decisions themselves to start smoking when they are adults. And since 86% of blacks and 46% of hispanics prefer menthol cigarettes over regular ones, the adults enjoy that flavour. But this ban is patronizing them as if the adult blacks are too stupid to think for themselves, so the politicians must treat them as they treat kids and make the decisions to take away bad things from them. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-components/menthol-and-other-flavors-tobacco-products https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-co... Instead of making changes so that youth can't get a hand on it, they are banning it because according to their own set standards, somehow adult blacks and hispanics are unable to think for themselves. Anecdotal but when I immigrated, it was the patronizing comments and policies which I found the most "offensive". It's like being treated as kids instead of grown adults who can make decisions and achieve great things on my own. Also this ban will result in the same consequences as the "war on drugs" and weed bans. Intentionally or unintentionally, it will end up locking more blacks just like it happened in 1980s and 1990s. Saying this as someone who's neither touched a cigarette in my entire life, nor do I like the smell of it or weed. But I find any such overreach by the federal government to be useless with bad consequences. Better solutions would be to legalize weed, menthol cigarettes etc and put efforts towards stopping youth from getting their hands on them.

siruncledrew 6y ago

What's weird is the way the government decides to deliver these messages. Why do government responses have to be framed as "arm over your shoulder" do-gooder decisions rather than evidence-based decisions when there's already lots of data? IDK, maybe the "think of the children!" line and knee-deep assumptions of helping disadvantaged groups is all that's needed to stir government policy vs analyzing perspectives from a scientific approach. I mean, it's still good overall, and it's a net benefit to reduce long-term smoking.

casefields 6y ago

We can trace this paternalistic pattern towards blacks: https://streamable.com/1v4dmm https://streamable.com/1v4dmm