Banning menthol cigarettes

No, I’m not saying that, or anything remotely like that, as you well know, and I resent your implication.

Your not-so-subtle implications that I need a history lesson concerning the Black church in America, and its role in the civil rights movement, and that I’m unaware of the many church bombings in this country, and that I’m wrongly, as a white person, claiming some insight into how Black people feel, or that I refuse to believe that Black anti-smoking activists have long sought a menthol ban, make it impossible for me to discuss this further with you.

Your posts add up to (while still maintaining some degree of plausible deniability) pretty much calling me a racist.

It’s not possible to have a conversation on that basis. I won’t be responding to any more of your posts, unfortunately. They’re pretty well-written, and you seem capable of understanding the nuances involved in this ban, but you’re couching your approval of it, and your disagreement with me, in terms that necessitate me dropping out of this debate.

It has been. You just dont like the answer.

The same thing I’d say to that hipster who wanted to buy that pack of cloves.

However, to the the black man, I would find a leader of the black community that could explain how Big Tobacco has systematically used and abused him, tricked him into getting addicted by pushing a more addictive cig, since Big Tobacco is all run by White Southern Good Old boys who are racist assholes who are out to addict blacks.

I’m sorry but there’s no plausible deniability needed here. What you keep doing - inventing a blackface sock-puppet to parrot your own ideas - is quite racist, and offensively so.

It’s also transparently lame and stupid. So you’ve invented a petulant smoker aggrieved because he can’t get his chosen cigarette brand? Okay, then I invent his wife, who always wanted him to quit smoking for his health, and will be glad for the extra cash if he quits. I invent his mother who is well-aware of decades of predatory marketing of tobacco companies on the black population, and welcomes the intervention to protect her child. I invent his children, who have been begging their dad to stop smoking. All of them tell your hypothetical man to sit down and get over it. The sound of the argument draws a small crowd of onlookers who voice their approval encouraging the family persuading him to quit. He realizes he’s been foolish, and selfish, and apologizes. Everyone slowly begins to clap. It’s been a good day.

See how dumb this is? Let’s just not.

Modhat: This thread will reopen later today most likely. I will take the time and pour through it to see if we can get it back on track.

There will be no more personal attacks in this thread when it reopens, the attacks won’t be noted but get warnings.

Modhat: This post does cross the line. You are calling another poster effectively a racist in it. Please do not do this again …

This note is incorrect and I take exception to it. Characterizing arguments as racist - OK? If not, it should be

The article contains many links, if you cannot click hyperlinks in an article I am not really concerned with you reading them, like I’m not your dad and it’s not my job to hold your hand.

The article is not paywalled, that is factually incorrect. I do not have a account and have never paid them any money and the article in its entirety renders for me. In fact the premium articles on Slate have “Slate Plus” at the top of them, which the linked article does not. Now, Slate does prompt you to disable ad blocker, but you can just click the X in that dialogue and it goes away (you don’t have to actually disable your ad blocker.) It is a free article on the internet, if you can’t read it then there’s not much I’m willing to do about it.

No, but if the links you are describing are paywalled then the least you could do is link to them.

It’s not paywalled, it’s literally a free Slate article.

When it’s all said and done, the “enticing” thing about cigarettes is the nicotine addiction. I am willing to bet a bundle that, if menthol cigarettes are banned, the overwhelming majority of smokers affected will switch to regular cigarettes rather than give them up entirely. This smacks of political grandstanding to me.

I just went through about half of the Slate article, clicking each link. Pretty much the only ones behind paywalls are the few that go to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. A couple of the links I checked have gone dead since the article was written.

Seems to me that there are at least a couple dozen links within that article which are active and do not go through any paywalls. Flooding this thread with bare links wouldn’t do anyone much good.

In fairness, I believe that Slate limits the number of articles one may read for free each month. So if someone has already read a dozen (or whatever the number is) articles before clicking on the links, they’ll be effectively paywalled.

In which case, @DrDeth can wait a month then read the whole article and click any link contained therein. Problem solved!

It is paywalled after you have reached a certain number of reads.

After two paragraphs that article says : “Let’s keep this thing going. You have run out of free articles. Try your first Month of Slate plus for only…”

But why not just link to the cites? There is no reason not to, unless of course they dont support your post.



I doubt anyone is going to post all those links and quotes for context just to please you when you can see it all for yourself at Slate a month from now.

Know what? I’m feeling generous. Here’s a significant excerpt:

A clever study led by researchers at RAND Corp. in 2010 tested the possibility that the large reductions identified in small communities were due to chance. …

NB: I’m just providing an except and have no interest in joining a debate.

Modnote: I believe you have exceeded fair use by a large margin, I have to remove most of what you quoted. Please don’t do this again.

If I am incorrect and this was public domain, please let me know, I can undo the snipping.

This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.