5 ms·

Flavored cigarettes were deemed to be too attractive to children (probably right, considering the Juul craze). Adults of any color are allowed to partake in se

by ng12 4y ago

Flavored cigarettes were deemed to be too attractive to children (probably right, considering the Juul craze). Adults of any color are allowed to partake in self-destructive habits.

robonerd 4y ago
> Flavored cigarettes were deemed to be too attractive to children Which is precisely why menthol cigarettes should be banned. The idea that black kids don't count for this consideration is homicidal insanity. "National survey data showed that significantly more adolescents and young adults than older persons smoked menthol cigarettes. In 2006, 43.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.6, 47.0) of current smokers aged 12 to 17 years reported that they used menthol cigarettes, as did 35.6% (95% CI = 34.0%, 37.2%) of current smokers aged 18 to 24 years. By contrast, 30.6% (95% CI = 28.6%, 32.6%) of smokers older than 35 years reported menthol use." 'Tobacco Industry Control of Menthol in Cigarettes and Targeting of Adolescents and Young Adults' https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125542 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2007.1255...
- adamrezich 4y ago
  > The idea that black kids don't count for this consideration is homicidal insanity. framing the issue as menthol cigarettes killing black kids is a really infantilizing view of black people. black people are just as capable as anyone else of free will and the ability to make their own life choices. it just so happens that menthol cigarettes are popular among black Americans. would you frame chewing tobacco as "killing rural white kids" in the same way? you could alternatively frame this situation as: black Americans, more than other groups, disproportionately enjoy smoking menthols, and this action is banning something they enjoy doing, and therefore is racist for the completely opposite reason! lower-income people disproportionately consume fast food. is this "killing" them, and should therefore be banned, because fast food is disproportionately "killing" lower-income people? the same principle applies here. also, I hope you're not in favor of "safe shoot-up sites" for heroin, etc., at the same time as you hold these views about menthols and black people, because that would be pretty contradictory! the possibility of a world where weed is legal and menthols can only be acquired illegally, handmade on the black market, is an interesting one, that's for sure!
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > would you frame chewing tobacco as "killing rural white kids" in the same way? YES Time and time again, the tobacco industry has been shown to specifically target children. Why? Because children are dumber than adults and are more malleable to advertising. Stop burying your head in the sand.
    - adamrezich 4y ago
      you didn't address the majority of my post! where do you draw the line on banning things that are bad for different groups of peoples' health? do you apply these values unilaterally across all vices, or is there something about tobacco that makes it particularly evil in your mind?
      - robonerd 4y ago
        The rest of your post is desperately trying to change the subject away from tobacco, by throwing wild accusations against me with no evidence. I thought to ignore it for the sake of civility, but since you insist... "I hope you're not in favor of "safe shoot-up sites" for heroin, etc.," This is an accusation. Show your evidence or shut the fuck up.
        adamrezich 4y ago
        where is the vitriol coming from? where are these "accusations?" I'm simply asking why you consider tobacco to be so specifically evil when compared to other vices to the point where you consider banning it to be something that should definitely be done. this is a question I always ask whenever someone declares that something that is currently not banned, should be banned, for the good of society. your adverse reaction to such discussion confuses me greatly.
        robonerd 4y ago
        > "I hope you're not in favor of "safe shoot-up sites" for heroin, etc.," Stop playing dumb. This is plain as day an accusation of hypocrisy (for which you have NO evidence.) The only good arguments against the prohibition against harmful substances is when the prohibition would do more harm than the substance itself; this cannot be shown for tobacco. This is why you and others who defend the tobacco industry are always desperate to change the subject. You think you can gaslight me into ignoring the intent of your malicious rhetoric? Sincerely: fuck off. I wish to never see another remark from you again.
ineedasername 4y ago
Menthols are flavored cigarettes, that's the issue. All flavors were banned except menthol for some strange reason.
- yucky 4y ago
  The reason isn't strange. Menthol was exempted because it's primarily consumed by black people who reliably vote for the current party in power and they didn't want to piss off a large part of their voter base by banning it. Sad but true.

by ng12 4y ago

Flavored cigarettes were deemed to be too attractive to children (probably right, considering the Juul craze). Adults of any color are allowed to partake in self-destructive habits.

robonerd 4y ago

> Flavored cigarettes were deemed to be too attractive to children Which is precisely why menthol cigarettes should be banned. The idea that black kids don't count for this consideration is homicidal insanity. "National survey data showed that significantly more adolescents and young adults than older persons smoked menthol cigarettes. In 2006, 43.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.6, 47.0) of current smokers aged 12 to 17 years reported that they used menthol cigarettes, as did 35.6% (95% CI = 34.0%, 37.2%) of current smokers aged 18 to 24 years. By contrast, 30.6% (95% CI = 28.6%, 32.6%) of smokers older than 35 years reported menthol use." 'Tobacco Industry Control of Menthol in Cigarettes and Targeting of Adolescents and Young Adults' https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2007.125542 https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2007.1255...

adamrezich 4y ago
> The idea that black kids don't count for this consideration is homicidal insanity. framing the issue as menthol cigarettes killing black kids is a really infantilizing view of black people. black people are just as capable as anyone else of free will and the ability to make their own life choices. it just so happens that menthol cigarettes are popular among black Americans. would you frame chewing tobacco as "killing rural white kids" in the same way? you could alternatively frame this situation as: black Americans, more than other groups, disproportionately enjoy smoking menthols, and this action is banning something they enjoy doing, and therefore is racist for the completely opposite reason! lower-income people disproportionately consume fast food. is this "killing" them, and should therefore be banned, because fast food is disproportionately "killing" lower-income people? the same principle applies here. also, I hope you're not in favor of "safe shoot-up sites" for heroin, etc., at the same time as you hold these views about menthols and black people, because that would be pretty contradictory! the possibility of a world where weed is legal and menthols can only be acquired illegally, handmade on the black market, is an interesting one, that's for sure!
- robonerd 4y ago
  > would you frame chewing tobacco as "killing rural white kids" in the same way? YES Time and time again, the tobacco industry has been shown to specifically target children. Why? Because children are dumber than adults and are more malleable to advertising. Stop burying your head in the sand.
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    you didn't address the majority of my post! where do you draw the line on banning things that are bad for different groups of peoples' health? do you apply these values unilaterally across all vices, or is there something about tobacco that makes it particularly evil in your mind?
    - robonerd 4y ago
      The rest of your post is desperately trying to change the subject away from tobacco, by throwing wild accusations against me with no evidence. I thought to ignore it for the sake of civility, but since you insist... "I hope you're not in favor of "safe shoot-up sites" for heroin, etc.," This is an accusation. Show your evidence or shut the fuck up.
      - adamrezich 4y ago
        where is the vitriol coming from? where are these "accusations?" I'm simply asking why you consider tobacco to be so specifically evil when compared to other vices to the point where you consider banning it to be something that should definitely be done. this is a question I always ask whenever someone declares that something that is currently not banned, should be banned, for the good of society. your adverse reaction to such discussion confuses me greatly.
        robonerd 4y ago
        > "I hope you're not in favor of "safe shoot-up sites" for heroin, etc.," Stop playing dumb. This is plain as day an accusation of hypocrisy (for which you have NO evidence.) The only good arguments against the prohibition against harmful substances is when the prohibition would do more harm than the substance itself; this cannot be shown for tobacco. This is why you and others who defend the tobacco industry are always desperate to change the subject. You think you can gaslight me into ignoring the intent of your malicious rhetoric? Sincerely: fuck off. I wish to never see another remark from you again.

ineedasername 4y ago

Menthols are flavored cigarettes, that's the issue. All flavors were banned except menthol for some strange reason.

yucky 4y ago
The reason isn't strange. Menthol was exempted because it's primarily consumed by black people who reliably vote for the current party in power and they didn't want to piss off a large part of their voter base by banning it. Sad but true.