37 points

The argument against banning menthols that I’ve read was that banning menthols infantilizes black people and takes away their right to autonomy. That feels like an attempt at shifting discourse away from the tobacco industry who created a slightly more addictive cigarette.

permalink
report
reply
31 points

This is a subject I know a bit about.

It is commonly felt that menthol makes cigarettes more comfortable to smoke. This was particularly important for cigarettes that used cheaper (and harsher) tobacco. However, it also allowed menthol cigarettes to be sold for less money. This lead to a popularity of menthol cigarettes in the black communities in the US in the 40s and 50s, when extreme racism drove much of US politics and economics, and thus a perpetually underemployed and underpaid underclass.

So then the civil rights war was started, and saw the emergence of a self-concept in some of the black communities of being an accepted part of American middle class culture. You remember the Jefferson’s theme song Movin’ On Up? That was the sentiment and the phrase used at the time. Kool cigarettes came out with ads in the black communities with phrases like “Move up to the cool taste of Kool” and crap like that. One company actually tried to launch a menthol brand called Uptown. Menthols are (or were) also popular in low income white communities, but there they had to compete with brands like Marlboro and Camel, and could carry a trashy image, as it were.

Anyway, it’s the tobacco companies making the argument about infantilizing the community. Black social and political leaders stand pretty uniformly behind the legislation, because of the toll the industry takes on the black communities.

And in any case, it’s legally no different than the government banning candy flavored cigarettes (which it can do). Menthol just had a carve out for a bit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The government can ban tobacco, but it’s undeniably tyrannical to ban a drug because you don’t like the consequences people are choosing for themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

That’s certainly a valid opinion, but I think you run into a problem when the word “tyrannical” is supposed to apply to taking measures to limit the flavors being added to a highly addictive and health damaging substance, and the government of North Korea.

Edit: Also, the government does not currently have the regulatory authority to ban tobacco. It can set limits on additives and regulate nicotine content, and it has the ability to regulate the format and forums of advertising campaigns, and can set restrictions on purchase age or require health warnings, but each one of those things is fought tooth and nail by the tobacco industry in the courts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I think I’m out of the loop. Menthols are a black people thing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The reply after yours offers a fascinating condensed history, if you’re interested in reading about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In my country they are something old women smoke

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’d love to hear the black community’s take on this. It smells racist, but I’m not sure. I think you’re right that they’re trying to take the angle that they’re trying to help the black population instead of focusing on the tobacco industry as a whole.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

They banned menthols where I live. They now sell cigarettes with hollow filters and menthol filters that fit said slots separately.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Brilliant! Lolol. Menthol is still nasty though(cigarettes ain’t no better)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Capitalism breeds innovation, I guess?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

It’s insane that cigarettes are still sold in the first place.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

You would rather have people smoking black market sigarettes that might be even more toxic than the regular kind?I also hate big tobacco but banning sigarettes will just replace a regulated market with a unregulated one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

I’d push for you to have to get a license to buy tobacco products and only issue that license to current users. (Much like a medical MJ license).

Just a small amount of hassle to hopefully prevent new smokers.

Ecigs make your point. Smoking was almost eliminated with millennials, gen z and younger are addicts because of that evil product.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Baby, capitalism has rotted your brain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

We’ve seen over and over that Prohibition doesn’t work and often backfires, but as someone who lost a father to a stubborn tobacco addiction, I’m in favor of anything to nudge people to quit. Make tobacco absolutely suck to use. Ban flavors. Tax the shit out of it and subsidize nicotine gum+patches. Ban filters, which don’t actually make them safer (they actually allow smokers to inhale the contaminants more deeply) and fill our environment with plastic pollution. Get rid of all branding on boxes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Prohibition doesn’t work, but I would like to see limits placed on where they can be sold, just like we have in many places with legalized cannabis. Make them only able to be sold in a dispensary. Make it so they can’t be sold within a certain distance from schools. Continue to tax the shit out of them. The only nicotine products that should be sellable outside of tobacco dispensaries should be products aimed specifically at cessation such as nicotine gum and nicotine patches.

Vapes should also be similarly regulated, and I say this as a person who vapes. I go to a vape shop for my juice and supplies. I vape a refillable mod, not a disposable pod thing, which are sadly so popular nowadays. I am aiming to cease vaping soon. (Last time I quit nicotine, I was clean for 7 years, but when Roe v Wade was overturned, that night I bought a pack of cigarettes, a bottle of vodka, and went on a bender while wallowing in despair. Not a good time and well, nicotine is hard to kick after even just a few smokes, especially for someone who previously had the habit.)

Anyway. There are controls that would have a positive impact without being full-on prohibition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Tax the shit out of it

They already are. It’s like $100 a carton here but people still buy them. That’s insane to me. When i quit they were around $20 a carton.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I feel like it still doesn’t make up for their societal cost in terms of lost years of life, increased insurance premiums and pollution

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Dat tax revenue though. New Zealand just reversed it’s radical generational smoking ban, because of the money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Just ban cigarettes and raise taxes, easy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But what if we raise taxes and raise taxes on cigarettes?

Most gouvernements, somehow

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

For those unaware:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/12/05/menthol-ban-delayed-biden-administration/

“Among smokers who are Black, 81 percent choose menthols, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a far higher rate than for smokers who are White. Top civil rights and health groups have long maintained that the tobacco industry has a history of aggressively marketing to Black communities.”

and:

https://abcnews.go.com/538/biden-losing-support-people-color/story?id=105272263

“Biden started his presidency with an 86 percent average approval rating among Black Americans, higher than any other racial group. But by July 2022, that number was down 23 percentage points, to 63 percent. That said, his approval rating among Black Americans — unlike the other three racial groups we looked at — did mildly increase ahead of the midterm elections. But since early 2023, it has dropped again to 60 percent, the lowest his approval rating has ever been among Black Americans during his presidency.”

permalink
report
reply
-4 points

Why do black people hate Biden anyway?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

From the 2nd link posted above:

“When I sit in focus groups with young Black voters and ask what [Democrats have] done to make their lives better, they’re hard pressed to come up with an answer, despite this administration delivering on much of the Black agenda,” Woodbury said. “That’s the communication challenge that we have a year to overcome.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Are Republicans any better, though? Granted, Trump did do more for black people since Jefferson /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

They’d probably have more success by only allowing cigarettes that taste like ass. Find this generation’s Barney, have him smoke the ass cigarettes and nobody will want to try them

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Man, depending on how old you are there’s 3 or 4 Barneys I can think of that you probably mean and none of them make sense to me in this comment

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah I’m wondering too

Barney the dinosaur (Kids TV character)

Barney Stinson (How I met your mother)

Barney Gumble (The Simpsons)

??

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Barney Fife was one of the other ones I guessed, but they meant the purple dude apparently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Its me Gordon. Barney from Black Mesa. Now about that bear I owe you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I mean the dinosaur, obviously his mouth is too big for ordinary cigarettes but the important thing is nobody wants to be anything like him and I think that’s a useful trait for applications like this

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Get Calliou to smoke. He’s even more hated than Barney.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 465K

    Comments