[HN Gopher] FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored...
___________________________________________________________________
FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars
Author : donatj
Score : 106 points
Date : 2021-04-29 20:28 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fda.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fda.gov)
| teruakohatu wrote:
| According to Wikipedia taxes make up 42.5% of the cost of a pack
| of cigarettes in the US. In New Zealand it is as best I can work
| it out, around 72% (including both excise tax and sale tax). One
| cigarette costs US$0.96 in New Zealand. Menthol is still allowed.
|
| This, along with bans on smoking inside public buildings
| including restaurants and bars, ban on advertising (they can't
| even be displayed in stores), and marketing has lead to
| significant falls in smoking.
|
| The downside is there is a growing blackmarket and robberies of
| convenient stores because they are worth so much and easily
| converted to cash.
|
| (I don't smoke and prices may have changed since I last read
| about it)
|
| Edit: Typo fixed.
| pdq wrote:
| Menthol, not methanol. I'm sure the latter is banned.
| voldacar wrote:
| Denying me the ability to make harmful or foolish choices
| dehumanizes me.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| The question that should have been asked is "how can we make
| menthols less attractive to smokers?"
|
| Because this is how you make them more attractive to smokers.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| I wonder if anyone who supports this also supports banning any
| alchohol with flavor.
| dade_ wrote:
| Just don't touch my Cuban cigars!
| chmod600 wrote:
| At what point do we say that we've just given up on the concept
| of freedom?
|
| For what behaviors will we say: "That's a really bad idea, but go
| ahead and suffer the consequences if you want to do it"?
|
| It seems we are moving in the direction of zero consequences
| first. By the time you have medical bills from smoking too much,
| you're on medicare, so it's not coming out of your children's
| inheritance.
|
| And then after the consequences are pushed onto other people, we
| say that you can't have the freedom any more.
|
| Seems like a good way to just eliminate freedom completely.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Oddly enough smoking actually saves the State money in the long
| run. Smoking citizens don't live as long and thus save money on
| medical care and entitlement payments.
| ajkjk wrote:
| Seems like a really oversimplified idea of what freedom is.
| It's not a binary where you're free or you aren't. You're never
| _completely_ free, or you wouldn't be able to pulled over by
| cops, forced to file taxes, or whatever, anyway.
|
| Like, yeah, you could stick to the "absolute freedom all the
| time" principle and do nothing to make people healthier, but if
| you had just done it anyway life would be better for everyone
| involved. And you're stuck with your rigid adherence to
| principles saying "well at least we were free" while the world
| is crappy compared to what it could be. Give me the slightly
| paternalistic government that makes its people healthier and
| happier every time.
| int_19h wrote:
| The problem is that your definition of "slightly" might not
| agree with that of the majority - and then you end up being
| targeted for your lifestyle choices.
|
| As far as freedom not being a binary... true, but insofar as
| it's a function of social arrangements, it's possible to find
| (or at least strive to find) a global maximum where everybody
| is as free as possible.
| [deleted]
| dawnerd wrote:
| Freedoms are fine until companies are doing whatever they can
| to make something so addictive it's near impossible for someone
| to quit without suffering or spending lots of money.
|
| It's not just a someone choses to smoke. It's they got hooked,
| usually by deceptive advertising or peer pressure.
|
| Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building codes?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building
| codes?"
|
| Obviously not, but those are different arguments about the
| concept of "freedom" and government regulation. A more
| relevant comparison would be about outlawing trans-fats,
| regulating the size of soda, portion sizes, flavored e-cigs,
| etc.
| Syonyk wrote:
| Bingo... my "modern press release Bingo card with all the CJT
| terms" is full. Can't just talk about how it's better for humans,
| have to ensure it's disproportionally going to impact
| disadvantaged groups and such.
|
| I've no particular problem with banning flavored cigars, because
| they're quite vile as far as I'm concerned. I've had one or two
| by mistake or when someone gave me something, and if you're used
| to a good tobacco blend, the... whatever they put in them is not
| very good.
|
| With cigarettes up around $8/box, though, I've no idea why more
| people don't switch to pipes. A pound of good pipe tobacco lasts
| for months of regular smoking (longer if it's infrequent), and
| $30 will get you a pound of some legitimately good stuff. You can
| get a good pipe and tobacco for the cost of a few weeks of
| cigarettes, it's a lot harder to chain smoke pipes, and an awful
| lot classier.
| bustin wrote:
| I must have missed the memo that Prohibition worked after we
| banned alcohol and weed.
|
| This is a ridiculous overreach. The end game is for people to
| stop smoking altogether, and while that would be good for
| American health, this is so unnecessary. It is not the
| prerogative of our peers to maintain our health.
|
| It is our free right to poison ourselves in the ways we desire.
| In ten years from now when cigarettes are fully illegal and those
| "darn ignorant poor people who just can't help themselves because
| they don't know any better" continue to swell up and die from
| overeating, are we, the wealthy class, going to dictate what they
| are allowed to eat?
|
| I wish these were rhetorical questions but as we continue to
| socialize the cost of medicine we need to be very explicit that
| we are OK paying for others' bad decisions as part of the
| package. If not, we should not socialize the cost. Dictating what
| risky behavior is allowed is the wrong move, because there is no
| limiting principle.
|
| For example, in a world where we dictate like this, how long
| until we ban climbing rope because it makes it too easy to climb
| rock faces, which leads to injury and socialized health-care
| costs?
|
| This ban is a serious assault on American freedom and a return to
| puritan morality.
|
| EDIT: some phrasing, may affect the comment below :(
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure it will be the
| same. The companies that make cigarettes are few and far
| between and are much more likely to obey government rules to
| make sure they stay in good graces of the government and can
| keep selling their other highly profitable products. With
| alcohol people could make it in stills in their basements and
| with pot it came from across the border - maybe menthols will
| too but I'm not sure it's a high value enough product to do so
| that I would consider it a 1:1 comparison to pot.
| Gatsky wrote:
| They are banning sale, not use. It seems totally reasonable to
| say we don't want anyone to profit from selling highly
| addictive health damaging products. This is ok. Your argument
| boils down to "I want the right to poison myself and the
| convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets."
|
| The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the
| degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a
| terrible idea, and impossible to implement.
| fitzie wrote:
| Eric Garner was killed because of the policies that created
| the a huge black market for cigarettes in NYC. the absurdity
| is they are banning flavor which isn't the harmful element.
| at the same time they are legalizing marijuana including
| edibles across this country. in a free country you have to
| allow people the liberty to make poor choices. putting out
| health information and reasonable restrictions is as far as
| the govt should go.
| Gatsky wrote:
| Two parts to this: - You are highlighting the negative
| consequences of a ban. There are of course negative
| consequences to a ban, the black market issue is far from
| the most important one. But as inidicated in the press
| release, smoking is a huge health problem causing untold
| suffering, loss of income, loss of productivity,
| unnecessary healthcare costs etc etc. These pros and cons
| of a ban need to be compared in a sane manner.
|
| - The 'Whatabout' argument, whatabout alcohol, marijuana,
| gambling etc. This is not an argument which can guide us on
| what to do with tobacco. If the question is, why are we
| doing something about tobacco but not any other X problems,
| the basic answer is because tobacco causes a huge burden of
| problems, and there are only very small upsides to smoking
| for an individual, and very large downsides for the
| individual and almost everyone else.
|
| I think there is a lot of research showing that 'putting
| out health information and reasonable restrictions' doesn't
| achieve much. If you are agreeing that something rather
| than nothing should be done, why do something that doesn't
| really work?
| jdhn wrote:
| >Your argument boils down to "I want the right to poison
| myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible
| retail outlets."
|
| That is the argument, and I find that it holds up just fine.
| It's not like cigarettes appeared on the market yesterday,
| their dangers are well known. Adults should have the ability
| to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are
| harmful to themselves.
| kristjansson wrote:
| > Adults should have the ability to make their own
| decisions
|
| How many people actually really make their own decisions,
| and have all of the information available to do so? Does
| the right of those people to take that decision and have
| their chosen product available cheaply and conveniently
| outweigh the incremental harm that accrues to everyone else
| merely tempted by the cheapness and convinence?
| wayneftw wrote:
| They banned menthol vape juice in my state so I bought a big
| bottle of menthol flavoring and some "Koolada" flavor that I just
| add to some tobacco juice.
|
| I bet the same thing would work for cigarettes.
| Gatsky wrote:
| Not quite sure of the exact timing, but looks like the Philip
| Morris stock price went up with this news.
| bmmayer1 wrote:
| These policies are almost always celebrated on the basis of the
| goal of the policy but not the reality of the enforcement. What
| happens when someone gets busted with a menthol cigarette? Or,
| worse yet, selling a "loosie" menthol on the street, much like
| Eric Garner did?
|
| Is it possible that maybe there's a connection between over
| regulating people's choices and over policing peoples' lives?
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| For the good of black people, we're going to create a new class
| of criminal for which black people are overrepresented. For
| their own good, of course.
| 101001001001 wrote:
| If you agree with this but disagree with the war on drugs then
| you are a hypocrite who probably doesn't have the ability to form
| his own opinion from first principles.
| _rpd wrote:
| Won't fans of this flavor just switch to vaping?
| holler wrote:
| or just regular cigarettes? what evidence is there that banning
| menthols will lead to a cessation of smoking? or that it won't
| lead to black market menthols
| mhb wrote:
| The FDA Wants To Lower Nicotine in All Cigarettes, Which Will
| Make Smokers Smoke More:
|
| https://reason.com/2021/04/29/the-fda-wants-to-lower-nicotin...
| jdhn wrote:
| I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. At this point, if you start
| smoking that's on you. It's not like there's any shortage of
| proof that tobacco is bad for you at this point.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| Hopefully they all switch to vaping. I'm excited to see the black
| market solutions to this as well.
| andiareso wrote:
| First ;)
|
| [Edit] so sad :(
| throwawaysea wrote:
| In general I am not a fan of the government banning things.
| People should be allowed the freedom to make individual choices
| and live their life unencumbered. Living in a state where
| everything is controlled, allowed, or disallowed by governments
| and corporations imposing their own morality and values is not
| living freely. Why is it anyone's business if someone smokes a
| flavored cigar? It makes even less sense when you consider that
| this government is allowing a free flow of drugs and criminals
| through an open southern border, including substances that are
| much more dangerous like meth or fentanyl.
|
| Lastly, I am just completely frustrated and exhausted by the
| continual hammering of "equity" and "justice" word salads used in
| every single press release coming out of this administration and
| the progressive/activist machine more broadly. Does anyone take
| sentences like this seriously:
|
| > [...] 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 [...]
| endisneigh wrote:
| I wonder if there's ever been a study comparing the effects of
| banning compared to ultra high taxation of products.
|
| I understand that there are groups that are negatively affected
| but is banning even effective in improving health outcomes in
| this case?
|
| In my imaginary world the tax would be extremely high and
| diverted to things _in the same area_ that have the opposite
| effect: e.g make cheeseburgers more expensive and subsidize leafy
| greens and produce with the same funds on a municipal level.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| At a certain point of taxation, banning is more effective
| because it's much harder to tell if you have an untaxed menthol
| cigarette than to tell if you have a menthol cigarette.
|
| So tax evasion becomes a limiting factor in such taxes.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Higher prices do reduce alcohol consumption.
|
| The problem is for the people it doesn't reduce consumption of.
| Plenty of people will happily spend less on their children or
| education or safer products or whatever to continue their
| dependence instead.
|
| There are solutions to these issues, but governments love to
| say "see, we have scientific proof that this tax is good for
| you".
|
| Similarly, a common anti-diarrheal (loperamide) is believed to
| help reduce opiate withdrawals if you eat a massive number of
| tablets (like 50-100). It doesn't. But the FDA still "asked"
| manufacturers to only sell in smaller packs. Now that my family
| has gone through their bottle of 200 after several years, it
| costs me 5x more than last time. Meanwhile, anyone in opiate
| withdrawal will do _anything_ to ward off those withdrawals.
| Logic will go out the window. Cost is irrelevant and anything
| will be done to get the funds /materials required.
| endisneigh wrote:
| My point is less about the tax and more about the money being
| used to help in the same community directly using the tax
| revenue from bad things directly.
|
| I mean we could just ban everything that produces poor
| outcomes even in moderation: gambling, smoking, certain types
| of alcohol, vaping, etc.
|
| If we can't trust our own citizens to do things in moderation
| then what?
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| The broader term is a pigovian tax and there's tons of
| (economic) studies on the effects of them. The problem with
| crazy high taxes is it also increases the incentive to
| circumvent them, legal or otherwise. One easy example off the
| top of my head is a person could stop buying them from a corner
| store and start directly importing them from outside the US.
|
| According to the press release at least one study suggests it
| would lead to 923,000 smokers to quit, which is a definite
| health improvement.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Make the tax high enough and you just create illegal markets.
| We should have learned from Prohibition and the War on Drugs
| that if people want to get high, they will find a way, and
| other people will be happy to provide what they are looking
| for.
| andiareso wrote:
| Honestly I completely agree. Taxation seems to be the only way
| to actual instigate change. Too high though you would likely
| lead to the same result as a full ban.
|
| I could see no real reason for a "blackmarket" to exist for
| menthol cigarettes as the consumption of them has remained
| pretty much the same over the last 10 years.
| ksherlock wrote:
| Eric Garner was choked to death by the NY police for selling
| loose cigarettes. That was 7 years ago.
| DanBC wrote:
| That's not a result of taxation, it's because the US has a
| pathologically terrible police culture that sees extra-
| judicial killing as acceptable.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Googling for "effects of banning compared to ultra high
| taxation of products" produces useful results that answer your
| question.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217165607.h...
|
| tl;dr: they have different, but complementary effects.
| Alupis wrote:
| People will rationalize the choice (since it's still available)
| and end up spending more on the same item, which doesn't reduce
| usage - it just means the people using this item now have less
| money than before.
|
| So, if the goal is to remove the item entirely, it has to be
| banned from production/import rather than highly taxed.
|
| I don't really think bans are great either - we're all adults
| and can make our own choices. Provide better education about
| the effects/impacts of the choice, then let the informed adults
| make their own decision.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The point isn't just to tax, but to use the funds to create
| things that are significantly cheaper and reverse the effect.
|
| Taxing obviously affects the demand and cost of consumption
| but that money should go somewhere useful, ideally not into
| the ether that is government spending.
| Alupis wrote:
| Your plan falls apart when it comes to the "vices" and "Sin
| Taxes", in my opinion.
|
| You won't prevent people from indulging in their choice of
| "vice" or "sin", you'll just make those people more poor
| than before. People who smoke and are addicted won't
| suddenly substitute smoking with chewing bubble gum or
| eating salads simply because those are cheaper options...
| endisneigh wrote:
| It's not about those specific people, it's about the
| aggregate. They probably won't chew gum, but you can
| probably help other poor people in the same community.
|
| Compared to what- banning it which creates some level of
| a black market and more waste by policing what was
| previously a legal activity. Not to mention fining or
| otherwise enforcing the new law also makes those poor
| people even poorer _and_ removes choice.
| Alupis wrote:
| Or you could just not try to Social Engineer society...
|
| It rarely works anyway, and often leads to unintended
| consequences.
|
| Educate people about the choices and why it might be bad
| for them to choose one way over the other - then hands
| off, let the now-educated adults make their own
| decisions.
|
| We can look at smoking as a good example of this. Decades
| of hard-core educational efforts about the negative
| effects have inarguably led to a massive reduction in
| smoking. Has it eliminated it entirely? No... but it
| certainly has reduced it to benign levels when compared
| to historical smoking.
|
| When someone considers trying cigarettes for the first
| time, do they consider the costs of an addiction/habit -
| or do they consider the effects on their own health? The
| massive taxes on a pack of cigarettes has little-to-zero
| impact on the choice to smoke the first one...
| ketzo wrote:
| 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.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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/
| [deleted]
| filoleg wrote:
| 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.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _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._
|
| That only makes sense in places where the taxes go to
| healthcare organizations. In the American system, that
| doesn't happen - there's no way that a city will hand the
| proceeds of its tobacco taxes to insurance companies.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Yeah, the point isn't to compensate insurers - they for
| sure get theirs and charge smokers more. It's to
| compensate healthcare systems and governments who foot
| the bill for 1) productivity decreases from smoking in
| the form of more sick days, more breaks, etc. and 2)
| people who don't have insurance and get cancer and are
| treated at the taxpayers expense
| duped wrote:
| > Consequently, vice taxes are always either ineffectual,
| or a ban that only applies to the poor.
|
| A 10% increase in tobacco price results in a 4% decrease in
| tobacco demand:
| https://www.who.int/tobacco/economics/taxation/en/
|
| I don't know if that counts as "ineffectual" in your book,
| but its not nothing.
| [deleted]
| timClicks wrote:
| Because addicts are not price sensitive.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Some are. Stealing this from a post above
|
| A 10% increase in tobacco price results in a 4% decrease in
| tobacco demand:
| https://www.who.int/tobacco/economics/taxation/en/
| BurningFrog wrote:
| 1. Smoking citizens are - on average - productive until
| retirement, but use up much less pension money. So the
| cynical policy would be the opposite.
|
| 2. When you increase taxes you get smuggling and illegal
| dealing with all the violence it brings.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Doesn't banning something also give you smuggling and
| illegal dealing? Like currently all drugs and back when
| alcohol was illegal?
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| 1. I'm skeptical as the age of retirement keeps going up.
| Have a source? 2. Agreed that's an issue in contexts with
| low rule of law but I think that's less of an issue here
| than say Ukraine/Russia/DRC where there is serious
| smuggling
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| So does life expectancy. You retire later, but in total
| amount of years retired per person? Probably even more
| today still? I don't think "standard retirement age"
| tracks perfectly with life expectancy.
|
| Also consider. The life expectancy of a 60 year old is
| above average. At age 60 you have already "survived"
| quite a lot of danger (adolescent drug abuse, driving
| accidents while young, opportunity to be a soldier in a
| war, crimes of passion in your twenties, mid life crisis,
| et cetera). So the life expectancy of a 60 year old is
| above the "average life expectancy", as many die before
| ever reaching that age.
|
| Isn't economics fun?
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| Afaik smokers and alcoholics are a blessing for most states.
| What is additionally spent on them due to healthcare costs is
| far less than the taxes they pay + the retirement payments
| they don't receive due to premature death.
|
| Funny clip from Yes, Prime Minister
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWxukctTlsY
|
| I think choice is good, and taxing appropriately a good
| measure. Not sure about today's health and safety obsession
| in general. Wonder if in today's world (hypothetically given
| the same technological means as back then) we would ever try
| something like a lunar landing. And one wonders what we will
| forbid in 20, 30 or 40 years. Prohibition again? All those
| "poor people, suffering from alcoholism, disproportionately
| those who can't afford therapies (esp with regards to long
| term alcoholism), people on the fringes of society, who we
| must help, and who can't be trusted to make their own
| choices, because _we_ know better"?
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Ha, I've seen that clip and really enjoyed it. I also am
| pretty sure I saw some research that says that's not true
| but I've just been searching the last few mins and can't
| find it. I have a bunch of files from when I was working in
| the field that I really need to sort through.
|
| But yeah, I also am concerned about how safety driven we
| are for things and unwilling to take risks as a culture but
| that might be recency bias because I'm reading "Where is my
| flying car?" and they basically make the same point about
| the regulatory state stymieing innovation in the name of
| safety (often for absurd things like nuclear)
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| It's really difficult to come up with good statistics,
| because of the number of things one can factor in.
| Tobacco industry in-country producing, or it's imported
| for example (total cost of cigarette smoking)? How many
| jobs directly, how many secondary (marketing, product
| chain, the news stand which sells them). How to factor in
| second-hand smoking exactly? Are smokers more likely to
| consume other drugs, if so, why? Because they have a
| tendency to try, or smoking causes them to try? How do
| you factor in that? How do you even "measure" that?
|
| With alcohol: how to factor in violence due to alcohol?
| How much less police incidents Friday / Saturday evening
| due to less alcohol? But what about people maybe going
| out less than before, or spending less money when doing
| so (will they pay the same prize for drinks if there's no
| alcohol involved)? What about sports betting and gambling
| industry (where it's legal)? How will it affect illegal
| drug use (we've been through that, but it's been long
| enough for people to say "well, it was different than").
|
| Even the death statistic is tough to do. "Pre-mature
| death due to smoking", maybe the person also was
| overweight and had diabetes, how do you estimate how long
| this person would have lived, if they didn't smoke?
|
| In every step of the way is the possibility for variance.
| Social sciences, from sociology, to psychology, to
| health, is such a minefield. Medicine of course is half
| and half. You can do a lot of stuff on the level of
| biology, chemistry, hard science in a lab, but health
| benefits/damages are "observed" in practice
| (observational studies). And the number of problems there
| are just ... huge.
|
| I could go on and on and on...
| busymom0 wrote:
| > 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/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-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.
| LargeWu wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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__ wrote:
| 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.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > 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?
|
| It gives more pleasure so it hooks you on more. So yes,
| it's more harmful, no? When I was smoking cigarettes back
| in the day, my fav was West Ice. They tasted really good
| and didn't have bad aftertaste. It was easier to smoke more
| and smoke one only for the menthol taste.
| Jiocus wrote:
| Menthol enhances nicotine delivery by altering nicotine
| metabolism. Menthol also interact with nicotine nACh
| receptors in the brain in various ways[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720998/
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > 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__ wrote:
| Welcome to the new world ;)
|
| 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.
| garciasn wrote:
| https://jag.journalagent.com/tkd/pdfs/TKDA_37_4_234_240.pdf
|
| From the paper:
|
| Its cooling effect may contribute to the intensity of
| smoking (deeper inhalation and/or more prolonged breath
| holding) resulting in greater exposure to tobacco smoke
| toxins. The effect of menthol through increasing the
| permeability of cell membranes results in a greater
| absorption of smoked toxins [2,3] Ahijevych and Garrett[2]
| reported higher cotinine levels in mentholated cigarettes
| compared to nonmentholated cigarettes, suggesting greater
| nicotine absorption per cigarette. Clarke et al.[3] found
| that mentholated cigarette smoking was associated with
| higher serum cotinine and carbon monoxide levels per
| cigarette.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Thanks for the citation.
|
| I should mention I oppose these bans regardless of
| whether menthol really is or isn't dangerous, but
| interesting to know it increases cellular permeability.
| And seems like a good bit of increased heart/cardiac
| effects.
| chmod600 wrote:
| When paternalistic policies are directed at particular
| demographics, it is kinda disturbing. I mean, sure, there's a
| reason. But there always is, and it makes me wonder if a line
| is being crossed here that will set a bad precedent.
| LargeWu wrote:
| The entire "paternalistic" argument rests on the premise
| that the choice to smoke, or not, is for most people purely
| rational, and totally discounts the predatory nature of
| tobacco companies and the addiction that comes with it.
| Menthols are targeted at blacks, and especially black
| children, since the menthol flavoring makes them more
| pleasant to smoke. Of the 20 million American menthol
| smokers, 17 million of those are black. That's not by
| accident, it's intentional.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| There are only 42 million black people in the US. Are you
| really saying that 40% of black Americans smoke menthols
| specifically? And presumably some percentage smoke
| something without menthol? That doesn't seem right.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| You do have to be careful with your groupings. I wonder
| if this isn't a confusion between the number of
| cigarettes smoked by a particular population and the
| number of people from each population who smoke, or
| something like that.
|
| I'm not sure where the number '20 million menthol users'
| keeps coming from, perhaps somewhere in the data behind
| [1]? Regardless, [2] and [3] suggest that somewhere
| around 20% of the African American population smokes
| tobacco in some form. _Among those 20% of black Americans
| who smoke_ about 85% use menthols.
|
| [1]
| https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
| report...
|
| [2] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-
| americans/in...
|
| [3] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-
| americans/in...
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Does the entire paternalistic argument really rest on
| that? What if you believe humans are rarely entirely
| rational and it's a spectrum (e.g. If I was addicted to
| heroin but trying to quit I'd probably be less rational
| when I really wanted a fix than if I was a pack a day
| smoker doing the same)?
| int_19h wrote:
| The alternative is to assume that most people aren't
| rational, except for those pushing for such laws.
|
| If one subscribes to that, why even bother with democracy
| at all?
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| We're about a couple months away from being told that
| opposing mandatory vaccination is racist because more black
| people die from COVID-19.
|
| (I mean that seriously not as a joke...although there is
| some natural humor in it as well)
| pradn wrote:
| The original harm was caused by tobacco corps targeting a
| particular demographic. Rectifying this wrong requires
| targeting that demographic, but it's not unsettling.
| Moreover, they have banned all the other flavors, so might
| as well finish the job with this one.
| sadgrip wrote:
| Sorry but where is the harm reduction for everyone else's
| race? Doesn't seem like it's a priority since the people in
| powerful also enjoy those vices. It's a bit coincidental that
| the races with less power also have the vices that they need
| to be protected by. My family is Mexican and they love
| tequila. I can guarantee you that if it was banned they'd all
| drink less alcohol and would be much less of a burden on our
| healthcare system. Somehow I'm yet to see a suggested ban of
| flavored Smirnoffs because it's turning our white college
| students into alcoholics.
| adamdusty wrote:
| I'm not going to argue for or against the ban, but tobacco
| companies specifically targeted african-americans to use
| them and the civil rights movement to defend industry
| policy.
|
| Mexicans like tequila because it's made from agave which is
| easy to grow in the desert. Mexicans have loved tequila
| since before europeans even landed in mexico.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Black people couldn't possibly make their own decisions on
| whether they want to smoke, or what flavor of cigarettes they
| prefer. They need the white people running the FDA to protect
| them.
| siruncledrew wrote:
| 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.
| bobbyi_settv wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| ralusek wrote:
| 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?
| tharne wrote:
| I don't understand all the downvotes to this. Any harm
| reduction initiative is by nature paternalistic and somewhat
| arbitrary.
|
| In most societies, a "vice" is a just a habit that the upper
| middle class disapproves of. In the 1950's, the upper middle
| class enjoyed smoking cigarettes so that was fine and dandy,
| but marijuana was the devil. Today, the upper middle class
| loves marijuana and finds cigarettes distasteful, so we have
| smoking bans alongside marijuana legalization.
| ketzo wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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
| catillac wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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."
| jolux wrote:
| 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-right...
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Eric Garner.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner
| bluecalm wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| duped wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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.
| jmcgough wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| whatshisface wrote:
| 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.
| glitcher wrote:
| I feel like adults are giving away their liberties bit by bit in
| the name of "protecting the children". I am sympathetic to the
| issue of kids getting addicted to smoking/vaping, but to ban any
| and all _flavors_ seems like a horrible idea.
|
| A drinker can go any liquor store and buy fruit flavored vodka. A
| recreational cannabis smoker can go to a local dispensary and buy
| fruit flavored weed - hell, even gummy bears!
|
| As an adult I want these choices available and it doesn't make
| any sense to me that only some adult vices aren't allowed to have
| flavors while all the rest of them do.
| benjohnson wrote:
| Frankly this seems paternalistic.
|
| It's hard for me to read this and not translate it as: "We found
| something non-white people enjoy and we're going to ruin it. For
| their own good."
| dcolkitt wrote:
| I'd like to imagine an alternative universe where the federal
| government bans wood burning fireplaces. After all fireplaces
| produce an enormous quantity of indoor air pollution, and
| sitting by a fire for the night is about the equivalent of
| smoking a pack of cigarettes.
|
| How would this policy proposal be received? My guess is that
| the public would be up in arms and decry the move as ridiculous
| government over reach.
|
| The only operative difference between this and the menthol ban
| is that fireplaces are associated with rich people living in
| upscale houses. The thought experiment tells me that at some
| level we're more willing to force paternalism on low status
| poor people.
| MarkSweep wrote:
| Well, at least in the SF Bay Area, you are not allowed to
| install a new wood burning fireplace. And you are not allowed
| to operate one on "spare the air" says, unless it is your
| only source of heat.
|
| https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/wood-smoke
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| New Zealand has an age requirement for tobacco, and has also
| (edit: proposed) to ban sales of it entirely based on birth
| year (2004 and forward) to phase out its consumption. I'd say
| this doesn't go far enough. We've known for over half a century
| the damage tobacco consumption does to a person's body.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-ai...
| howeyc wrote:
| Amazing how positions differ.
|
| I'm of the opinion you can ruin your own body all you want.
| As long as you don't breath it into my face, have at it. I
| wouldn't advise anyone to take up smoking though.
|
| I think you should be able to buy cocaine (as an example) as
| easily as tobacco.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I have seen too many addicts slowly kill themselves
| (tobacco, opioids, cocaine) to be able to morally maintain
| this position. It's easy to say when you assume everyone is
| of sound mind and capable of self regulation, which is not
| the case. People have demons and mental health challenges
| that make them vulnerable.
|
| You'd need a model like Portugal, where they fund treatment
| programs and social services along side liberal drug
| policy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
| howeyc wrote:
| Who decides you're too vulnerable to make your own
| decisions.
|
| At what percentage of the overall populace being
| classified as vulnerable do we start removing the
| decision from the whole population.
|
| But yes, something similar to Portugal would be my
| preference. Health treatment provided by government,
| possibly a "Health Premium" tax paid on tobacco, drugs,
| alcohol, etc at point-of-sale to help cover costs.
| Different tax rates based on how "bad" for your health it
| is.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| These are all great questions, and the purpose of
| government and democratic governance.
| int_19h wrote:
| Governments - even democratic ones - do not exactly have
| a good track record on that. For example, it was mostly
| democratic governments that enacted compulsory
| sterilization laws back in the day.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > People have demons and mental health challenges that
| make them vulnerable.
|
| Maybe some small number of people do. But why should
| their problems result in everyone else being deprived of
| choice?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| But of how unsound a mind must someone be before we say
| "I know better than you?"
|
| There are 10s of thousands of addicts on the street that
| the government does not feel it has the grounds to
| institutionalize. So we trust them to make every decision
| except which psychoactive chemicals that aren't alcohol
| they can consume?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| We don't trust them, we gave up on them.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| fair enough
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Same with Alcohol no? Same with burning and inhaling Cannabis
| no?
|
| >but we should let folks kill themselves slowly with tobacco?
|
| This is a very slippery slope. It's possible to responsibly
| smoke, just like it's possible to responsibly consume foods
| high in sugar.
|
| Of course, people want to ban(or hate tax) sugar/high fat
| foods as well, so perhaps this is what you'd like to have
| happen.
| jfk13 wrote:
| > has also started to ban sales of it entirely based on birth
| year (2004 and forward)
|
| "has started to" may not be quite correct; it sounds to me
| like this is a proposal that is being considered.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > We've known for over half a century the damage tobacco
| consumption does to a person's body.
|
| Sorta. We don't have any randomized trials in people. Even
| harder to blind the participants for extra science.
|
| We have tons of epidemiological evidence that it's bad, but
| that's piled with pesky cofounders.
|
| Being the type of person that could become/does become
| dependent on tobacco does terrible things.
|
| Being the type of person that can shake off that addiction
| does great things.
| kristjansson wrote:
| The various personal freedom takes on regulation like this seem
| ring hollow.
|
| Regulations like this impose constraints on economic and
| commercial activities, not personal ones. No one will be
| prevented from rolling a mint leaf into their own cigar. It was
| perfectly legal to walk around New York under Bloomberg with a
| bucket of homemade sugar-water and a straw.
|
| The thing curtailed is profiting from activities which create
| undue harm. Should we feel our inability to buy a poorly-
| insulated household appliance, or a car without seatbelts[1] as a
| loss of personal freedoms? Should the market decide the
| appropriate level of inflammability for home furniture? I think
| we generally recognize that allowing the profit motive to justify
| a failure to prevent harm as immoral and socially undesirable.
| Why should limiting the motivation to induce harmful activity in
| others be viewed as paternalistic and patronizing?
|
| [1]: sidestepping the question of seatbelt-use regulations, which
| are arguably a restriction on _personal_ freedoms
| vvanpo wrote:
| On the one hand, I understand that complete prohibition for drugs
| and alcohol just don't work. But I have a difficult time squaring
| that against my feelings towards tobacco, where I feel it would
| be so much easier for me to quit if I wasn't tempted by its
| availability at every corner store.
| walrus01 wrote:
| What are your thoughts on a retail cigarette sale system such
| as in Canada, where they may be available in every convenience
| store, but there can be absolutely no signage or advertising,
| and they're kept in an opaque cabinet with no labels on it?
|
| https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/keeping-bc-healthy...
|
| https://www.ontario.ca/page/tobacco-vendor-fact-sheet
| leetcrew wrote:
| I oppose prohibition for the moral reason that adults ought to
| be allowed to make these choices for themselves and the
| practical reason that it doesn't seem to work well anyway. but
| that's a fair point. this might actually be a good use case for
| zoning. imo the happy medium is "manufacturers are allowed to
| sell X, as long as they make it as safe as it intrinsically can
| be" and "you're allowed to buy X, but you might have to go out
| of your way to do it". people that want to avoid X or pretend
| it doesn't exist would have that option too.
| s17n wrote:
| It probably wouldn't
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Do you think making it harder to get would help?
|
| Maybe requiring a license to sell tobacco, and limiting the
| number of licenses in a municipality based on population?
|
| Or putting the stores in industrial zoned areas rather than
| commercial/residential?
| samatman wrote:
| I completely quit smoking tobacco.
|
| By switching to flavored vape cartridges, which the FDA then
| helpfully made illegal in a fit of moral panic.
|
| Pity, because as far as anyone can tell, vaping is at least two
| orders of magnitude less deleterious to health than smoking.
|
| So these days I refill my old cartridges and nurse a grudge
| against FDA. I haven't backslid to smoking, but if they ban
| high-nicotine salt juice entirely, I don't know what I'm going
| to do.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I feel it would be so much easier for me to quit if I wasn
| 't tempted by its availability at every corner store_
|
| Canadian bans on packaging and promotion are one solution.
| Another is to mandate tobacco products, or certain tobacco
| products, be mail ordered.
| veilrap wrote:
| This just feels like a continuation of the failed war on drugs...
|
| I don't smoke, but I have no problem with allowing people to do
| so in private spaces. Why do we insist on micromanaging peoples
| lives?
| s800 wrote:
| Health care
| awillen wrote:
| Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for those
| people who don't have private insurance, they're saddling
| society with the costs of their choices.
|
| In general I lean libertarian and agree that banning things
| isn't great, but if you want to make your own choices, you have
| to bear the costs of those choices. If you want to waive your
| right to government funded healthcare, then you ought to be
| able to make whatever unhealthy choices you want.
| km3r wrote:
| From what Ive seen, smokers are cheaper on Medi-* because
| they, on average die, so much younger.
| kube-system wrote:
| Just tax cigarettes to the equivalent or greater than the
| amount of dollars of burden they place on the healthcare
| system. Make smokers pay for their own choices.
|
| Externalized costs are the root of many seemingly
| insurmountable societal problems, and most can be fixed by
| simply accounting for the costs appropriately.
| NilsIRL wrote:
| In France, taxation accounts for 80% of a cigarette pack.
| [0]
|
| Yet tobacco costs 120 billion euros a year for only 16
| billion in revenue (to the government). [1]
|
| It is almost infeasible to tax cigarette to the equivalent
| of their burden on the health care system.
|
| [0]: https://www.boursorama.com/patrimoine/actualites/les-
| taxes-s...
|
| [1]: https://www.reseau-hopital-
| ght.fr/actualites/patients/campag...
| techrat wrote:
| You're getting dangerously close to the whole "social
| credit" style of cost burden. Slippery slope, bud.
|
| Now what? Your healthcare costs should go up because you
| like your eggs fried and with salt instead of hard boiled?
| jedberg wrote:
| No, but it would make sense to put a health tax on salt.
| Make people bear their external costs. Like a carbon tax.
|
| Just make sure you have a dividend that goes back to the
| poor to make up for the regressiveness of such taxes.
| rcoveson wrote:
| The idea that my _own health_ is an external cost is
| crazy. How do you tax a free solo rock climber like Alex
| Honnold? A 1000% tax on chalk dust?
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I mean things probably will go that way as tracking of
| individual behaviors gets easier right? For example, I
| believe some healthcare providers will give free fitbits
| to users (I think the State of Nevada does) to get them
| to exercise more, so not a direct fee but they are
| incentivizing a certain behavior. Then you've got all the
| car insurers now that are looking at more details of your
| driving above and beyond the standard 1) how old are you
| 2) have you been in any accidents
| nicoburns wrote:
| I seriously hope not. It completely defeats the purpose
| of insurance, which is to spread risk.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| That's the problem with socialized medicine. Once you
| institute it now your body belongs to the state. You're not
| allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the
| "people" have to pay for it.
|
| Prohibition is wrong. It's not just unethical but
| impractical.
|
| And congrats, now cops aren't just going to claim they smell
| weed in my car, they're going to claim they smell menthol
| too.
|
| --
|
| Also your "waive your right to gov funded healthcare"
| argument doesn't make sense. Because I still have to pay for
| the other guy's healthcare too.
| jolux wrote:
| >You're not allowed to put something deemed bad in your
| body because the "people" have to pay for it.
|
| Has any country with socialized medicine actually banned
| tobacco fully? Genuinely curious.
|
| If they haven't then I don't understand why regulation
| isn't continuous with the current regime, where smokers
| have to pay a lot more for health insurance. These problems
| do not go away in a free market system, insurance companies
| will always try to incentivize you to take on less risk.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Being incentivized by paying for your increased risk via
| decentralized market dynamics is fine. Being banned from
| consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs
| to you but rather is property of the state is not fine.
|
| Unaware what countries have fully banned tobacco. Without
| looking it up at all...maybe singapore? They seem like
| the type.
| jolux wrote:
| >Being banned from consuming a substance because your
| body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of
| the state is not fine.
|
| Sure but that's not really what's being discussed here
| right now, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that
| this has happened. From another perspective, governments
| are trying to do their best to protect their citizens
| from the malign interests of private entities who sell
| dangerous products. I agree that banning tobacco entirely
| would be too coercive, though.
|
| Apparently Bhutan is the only country where tobacco is
| illegal. I understand your concerns with regards to
| prohibition but I think this is a slippery slope argument
| without a better example or a more compelling
| explanation.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Perhaps there should be a way to opt out of taxpayer
| subsidized healthcare if you smoke, eat excess sugar/carbs,
| drink alcohol, smoke crack, etc.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Once you go down this road you end up with social credit
| scores. First it's the obvious stuff like tobacco, then
| not exercising enough, then not sleeping enough, and
| eventually you reach the paradox that free will is a lie
| anyway and there's no functional difference between
| insomnia and "choosing" to eat a donut
| nicoburns wrote:
| What makes sense is to socialise medicine, and then have
| the body responsible for running that:
|
| 1. Run public health awareness campaigns to make sure that
| people (especially children / young people) are aware of
| the health risks. You can do similar things around healthy
| eating.
|
| 2. Treat drug usage and addiction as medical rather than
| criminal issue (so the police might confiscate your weed if
| they catch you with it, but they won't charge you with
| anything).
|
| Both of these minimise healthcare costs without actually
| banning anything.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare
| costs because it divorces the person creating the cost
| from bearing the results. This applies in basically every
| socialist system not just socialized medicine.
|
| It's also worth mentioning that public health awareness
| campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to
| moralize more effectively. Case in point: saturated fats,
| pretending everyone is equally vulnerable to AIDS, etc
| nicoburns wrote:
| > Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare
| costs because it divorces the person creating the cost
| from bearing the results
|
| Then why are healthcare costs in the UK (socialised) and
| Europe (typically private, but highly regulated with a
| social option) dramatically lower than US (private)
| healthcare costs despite similar levels of care? Unless
| you have evidence that it increases costs, I would
| suggest that you viewpoint is just ideology, and you may
| wish to consider revising it.
|
| > It's also worth mentioning that public health awareness
| campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to
| moralize more effectively
|
| They also often do a lot of good despite this. There is a
| very successful public health campaign promoting the
| eating of 5 fruits and vegetables a day. It's not quite
| accurate. The science suggested we should be eating 9.
| But it's lead to people eating a lot more fruit and veg
| than they would otherwise have done, which is a good
| thing all round.
| veilrap wrote:
| I generally feel similarly, but I'd rather go the taxation
| route than the control route. If people want to use hazardous
| substances, tax the substances to help fund the government
| subsidized health care.
| rcoveson wrote:
| > Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for
| those people who don't have private insurance, they're
| saddling society with the costs of their choices.
|
| This may sound pedantic, but I think it's an important
| distinction: _Society_ has saddled society with the costs of
| their choices. It 's not the self-destructive choice maker's
| fault.
|
| If a child in public school willfully refuses to practice
| cursive, they may require additional instruction and
| resources. I wouldn't say that child is "saddling society
| with the costs of their choices". They're just living the
| life they were born to, and society is obsessing over them.
| yissp wrote:
| How far do you take that logic, though? A huge variety of
| medical issues could be argued to be "your fault" to some
| extent.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| This is the view I am most sympathetic with. I actually did
| advocacy work to increase tobacco taxes but got frustrated
| because almost everyone in the field wanted governments to
| outright ban products, and as someone who believes in freedom
| of choice that didn't sit well with me. I advocated for
| governments to find out how much "cost" a pack of cigarettes
| actually inflicted (e.g. cost to the healthcare system from
| the smoker, if they smoke indoors to their family, from lower
| productivity and therefore lower earnings/taxes, etc.) and
| increase the tax to cover that price
| oytis wrote:
| Did anyone make a calculation on that? I mean smokers are
| obviously less healthy, but their lifespan is also shorter.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| There's a huge difference between regulation and
| criminalization.
|
| I think you'd find that most people who support abolishing the
| war on drugs, and who support drug legalization, are also
| supportive of regulation the legalized drugs.
|
| The lack of regulation and criminalization are two reasons that
| the US has a fentanyl epidemic. It's too risky to import heroin
| because it weighs a lot, while 1 gram of fentanyl is 10,000+
| doses.
|
| Meanwhile, regulated heroin that's used in hospitals is pure
| and free of adulterants.
| dubcanada wrote:
| If you are going to provide any kind free or discounted health
| care, the best way to make that cheaper is to restrict people
| from doing damaging things.
|
| So ya healthcare.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| The problem here is everyone dies, and having people die of
| lung cancer at an early age costs the healthcare system less
| than having them die of some other form of
| diabetes/cancer/heart disease 15 years later. The studies
| that talk about the costs of treating cancers related to
| smoking are not giving you a picture of what else the same
| people would be treated for before they die. Really the worst
| thing for any healthcare system is to have lots of elderly
| people going through expensive treatments to prolong their
| life, and after you end all smoking, you'll find you have
| even more elderly people going through expensive treatment,
| except the types of cancers will be more evenly distributed.
| willio58 wrote:
| Agreed. It's a balance though, you don't want to create a
| black market for the things you make illegal. For some reason
| I don't see menthol cigarettes becoming a black market but I
| can't say the same for flavored vape cartridges.
| leetcrew wrote:
| it's entirely possible that smokers have lower lifetime
| healthcare costs due to living significantly shorter lives on
| average. they certainly draw less social security.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22449823/
| NeutronStar wrote:
| Except a smoker cost way less over the course of its like
| than someone living to be 90 years old. It costs way more to
| keep old people alive.
| ketzo wrote:
| Smoking is really, really, really bad for you. It's much worse,
| and much harder to stop, the earlier you start. Banning flavors
| 1) stops some overall consumption 2) especially stops _youth_
| consumption.
|
| Lifetime healthcare costs for the negative externalities of a
| pack-a-day smoker can reach into seven figures. And most
| people, frankly, don't pay that themselves. It's a tremendous
| burden on our healthcare system.
|
| We ban lead paint, even though it's super cheap and makes for
| vibrant colors. I honestly don't see how this is any different.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| >We ban lead paint, even though it's super cheap and makes
| for vibrant colors. I honestly don't see how this is any
| different.
|
| That's totally different. Lead paint leads to a ton of
| environmental exposure to unwitting people. Smokers by
| contrast have made a choice to smoke.
|
| Do you want them to ban bacon and soda too? Where's the line?
| Should we ban motorcycles because they're more dangerous than
| cars? What about recreational diving, skydiving and
| recreational pilots? Backyard swimming pools are incredibly
| dangerous statistically, shall we ban them too?
|
| People have an inherent right to life, liberty and the
| pursuit of happiness. The government can ban smokers from
| smoking in a way that exposes you, but what right do they
| have to say you aren't allowed to do something dangerous if
| you so choose to do it?
| RacfeelBudkind wrote:
| > Do you want them to ban bacon ... Where's the line?
|
| There's a factor 30 of leeway on where to draw the line:
|
| > _How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to
| consumption of processed meat and red meat?_
|
| > about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are
| attributable to diets high in processed meat.
|
| > ...
|
| > about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to
| tobacco smoking
|
| https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/cancer-
| carcinogenic...
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| Not entirely different. Smokers may choose to smoke and
| that is their choice but the people around them don't. Some
| of them may have control over their exposure but children
| (and pets) in smoking households are victims with little to
| no control over their exposure.
|
| I don't think we should ban tobaccos outright, regardless
| of that fact, but smoking has real consequences for people
| other than the smoker themselves.
| nanidin wrote:
| It's a public health issue on the same order of magnitude as
| COVID-19, but happening every year: "Cigarette smoking is
| responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United
| States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from
| secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths
| annually, or 1,300 deaths every day." [0]
|
| [0]
| https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...
| CivBase wrote:
| Is it, though?
|
| COVID-19 is scary because you can't reasonably eliminate your
| risk of contracting it without significant mental, social,
| and economic sacrifice. But I'm not worried about getting
| lung cancer because I just don't smoke. You can't just
| accidentally give lung cancer or a nicotine addiction to
| someone at a social gathering.
|
| It's impossible to smoke in the United States without knowing
| the addictive and carcinogenic nature of it. The warnings are
| plastered all over the ads, the counter, and the product
| itself. If you know all that and still choose to smoke,
| that's on you. People take risks with their lives for things
| that make them happy all the time. As long as you know the
| risks up front and you aren't bothering me with it, why
| should I care?
| whb07 wrote:
| Now do obesity.
| jakeva wrote:
| But it's not. Smoking isn't contagious.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| It sort of is actually.
|
| If someone near you is smoking, so are you.
| jakeva wrote:
| If someone near you is smoking, when you go home you
| aren't at risk of an ER visit in the next week. If
| someone near you has Covid, you are.
| judge2020 wrote:
| https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/sec
| o...
|
| > Since the 1964 Surgeon General's Report, 2.5 million
| adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed
| secondhand smoke.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Honestly the secondhand smoke research is very sketchy.
| Actually anything that becomes a public health issue ends
| up getting distorted by the public health establishment.
| Case in point: flu vaccines. They're so ineffective that
| no rational person would ever waste time taking them, yet
| many of us do:
| https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-
| influ... (note: the "no rational person" is slight
| hyperbole)
|
| The better argument is that the actual social behavior of
| smoking is contagious, as any social behavior is.
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| The victims of secondhand smoke aren't someone standing
| on the street next to a smoker but people (and pets) who
| grow up in a household with smokers. Whether or not the
| numbers are what they are claimed to be it's hard to
| argue against the reality that thousands of children are
| subjected to the very real harms of secondhand smoke
| their entire childhood with no recourse, especially when
| they are most vulnerable.
|
| I don't say this to say we should ban tobacco because
| "think of the children" but I genuinely think people
| seriously overlook this aspect. Someone smoking near you
| as an adult might be obnoxious but children in smoking
| households suffer and develop lifelong health problems
| for a vice that is entirely out of their control that
| many people don't even really see as a problem or think
| about.
| void_mint wrote:
| That's true, but covid doesn't get you chemically addicted,
| nor does it have a bunch of companies attempting to coerce
| you into continuing to have it.
| [deleted]
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Ha, I hear this argument all the time and it's actually
| completely wrong. All social behaviors are contagious. They
| _do_ spread exponentially. Especially drug consumption /
| smoking.
|
| Note: it's not relevant but to be clear I oppose all drug
| bans (incl tobacco) and all the COVID restrictions. So
| don't interpret my pointing out that social behaviors are
| contagious to be justifying the menthol ban.
| CivBase wrote:
| This misses the point of what makes a contagion so bad.
| An outbreak of a contagious disease is bad because
| victims do not (usually) consent to them and often has
| limited or no means of protecting themselves against
| infection. A nicotine addiction is nothing like that.
| lainga wrote:
| Is there an active or other ingredient in tobacco that makes
| its smoke more harmful than cannabis? Or is it the method of
| ingestion?
| stefan_ wrote:
| Nicotine is a harmless nootropic on the level of caffeine,
| it's inhaling combustion products that is the big problem.
| jolux wrote:
| Nicotine is potentially harmful in a few ways but mostly
| it's the constituents of tobacco smoke, particularly
| nitrosamines:
| https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20121116-can-we-ever-
| have....
| nicoburns wrote:
| > Nicotine is potentially harmful in a few ways
|
| Not least of which is it's incredibly addictive. Meaning
| that tobacco smokers often smoke _a lot_.
| jolux wrote:
| True, but of itself that's not necessarily a health
| problem. I was talking about the limited evidence that it
| can harden your arterial walls and such.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Yes. This is a common misconception. It's not that inhaling
| any kind of smoke is inherently dangerous. It's
| specifically the oxidative damage that tobacco causes that
| makes it so uniquely deleterious. Reactive oxygen species
| are no joke.
|
| By contrast cannabis is a natural anti-oxidant. Smoking
| cannabis might be correlated with more bronchitis but none
| of the cancer, heart disease, [insert every other tobacco
| harm]. BTW I seem to recall particle size is different
| between tobacco and cannabis smoke but I think the
| oxidative damage is the main reason
| lacker wrote:
| They both put tar in your lungs. A tobacco smoker generally
| smokes far more cigarettes than a cannabis smoker. Per-
| breath, cannabis seems to put more tar in your lungs, since
| it's generally unfiltered. But a tobacco smoker takes many
| more breaths of smoke.
|
| Some information here:
|
| https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-
| reports/mari...
|
| As far as I can tell, vaping is far, far safer than
| inhaling smoke, for both tobacco and cannabis. The
| healthiest strategy is to avoid all of these things of
| course.
| elil17 wrote:
| Unlike other drugs, it is legal to grow your own tobacco in the
| US - even if you're too young to buy it. They're restricting
| what big corporations can sell, not what individual people can
| do. There's nothing in this change stopping anyone from buying
| loose tobacco, adding their own flavor, and rolling cigarettes
| with it.
| samatman wrote:
| Excellent!
|
| So an enterprising Black entrepreneur can buy some loose
| tobacco, menthol flavor, some tubes, a rolling machine, and
| go sell "loosies" on the corner.
|
| And then the police can choke him to death!
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I do wonder how hard it is to add menthol to existing
| cigarettes. Will we see Head Shops where you buy a pack of
| cigarettes and on the counter are menthol drops you can
| sprinkle on, and it's all technically legal since they're
| separate products?
| nprz wrote:
| Some how the democratic party is in favor of prohibiting the
| use of menthol cigarettes, but they're also in favor of
| legalizing marijuana? Very weird.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _but they 're also in favor of legalizing marijuana? Very
| weird._
|
| In every state that it's been legalized in, weed is heavily
| regulated. Weed must be tested for adulterants, heavy metals
| and mold contamination before it is sold. Some states even
| regulate the amount of active compounds that are present in
| the marijuana.
|
| In the states I'm familiar with, it's also illegal to
| package, market or sell marijuana in manners that might
| entice children to use it. Sometimes that means banning THC
| laden candies or vapes that children can recognize, and
| banning the use of colorful advertising or cartoons, as well.
| jolux wrote:
| Cannabis in Massachusetts has to be sealed in child-proof
| containers before leaving the point of sale, too.
| jolux wrote:
| Tobacco is vastly more harmful than marijuana. I don't
| necessarily agree with the justification but I don't think
| these positions are inconsistent.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I don't have a strong opinion either way, but you could
| just ban both things you know.
| catillac wrote:
| We should consider risk versus reward though, not just
| harmful effects, buttressed by some measure of individual
| liberty.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What is inconsistent is not banning alcohol, since it by
| far causes more harm than marijuana or menthol.
| jolux wrote:
| Agreed. Unfortunately the social perception of alcohol is
| still at a place where banning it would be impossible,
| though. People don't even want to talk about making it
| more expensive. Alcohol still doesn't have nutritional
| labels in the US!
| int_19h wrote:
| We have already banned alcohol in US a long time ago.
| That didn't last long, for very good reasons.
| jolux wrote:
| >That didn't last long, for very good reasons.
|
| It was, and still would be extremely unpopular. The
| public health reason is as strong as it's ever been.
| NeutronStar wrote:
| Because when they legalize marijuana they'll also pass a
| bunch of anti privacy laws. Watch here in Canada, since we
| can smoke marijuana legally they can arrest you without any
| probable cause.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _in favor of prohibiting the use of menthol cigarettes, but
| they 're also in favor of legalizing marijuana_
|
| Cigarettes are sold at every convenience store in flashy
| packaging. They are made by deep-pocketed multinationals with
| generations of lobbying experience.
|
| Legal marijuana, on the other hand, is sold with minimal
| advertising in licensed, purpose-built stores. If you gave
| tobacco companies a choice between banning menthol and
| forcing the sale of cigarettes in tobacco stores only, I
| think I know which one they'd pick.
| meepmorp wrote:
| You can still buy tobacco, just not flavored with menthol. The
| war on drugs equivalent is that you can keep smoking crack,
| just not menthol crack.
| [deleted]
| RacfeelBudkind wrote:
| > Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths
| per year in the United States, including more than 41,000
| deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about
| one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.[1]
|
| > The tobacco industry spends billions of dollars each year on
| marketing cigarettes.[2]
|
| > Each day, about 1,600 youth try their first cigarette.[2]
|
| > In 2015, nearly 7 in 10 (68.0%) adult cigarette smokers
| wanted to stop smoking.[1]
|
| > In 2018, more than half (55.1%) adult cigarette smokers had
| made a quit attempt in the past year.[1]
|
| > In 2018, more than [only] 7 out of every 100 (7.5%) people
| who tried to quit succeeded.[1]
|
| Smoking legislation isn't about micromanaging the lives of
| people who fully understand the risk choose to smoke anyway.
| It's about preventing cigarette manufacturers from preying on
| those who don't fully understand the risk or didn't when they
| started, but are now addicted.
|
| [1]
| https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...
|
| [2]
| https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/inde...
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| >and 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
|
| The messaging changes with the whims of society, but the
| authoritarian motivations remain the same.
| 60secz wrote:
| Not hard to diy. Time to invest in menthol spray companies?
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Just awful. Aren't we adults here?
| [deleted]
| m3kw9 wrote:
| How about requiring the flavour to taste bad
| gpm wrote:
| Amusing, but probably too subjective. It's not like the people
| making it are going to co-operate with you in making it
| _actually_ taste bad.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-29 23:03 UTC)