Banning menthol cigarettes

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 slate.com 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.

Exactly.

This?

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.

This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare short‐term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking‐restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short‐term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.

Note that use the term short‐term several times. And those writers do not appear to be medical doctors they were writing for a RAND journal that is fairly well respected in the economics field.

Note that my cites use the term “long term”.

It is quite possible that short term effects were not as great as originally thought. That does not mean that SHS is not deadly and dangerous. Cite after cite, expert after expert has said so.

Hello?