I don’t know that it will or won’t cause anyone to quit. I know menthols are sold because some people find them more appealing, so if they go away, then maybe fewer people will be enticed to pick up the habit.
Speaking again to my own experience, I started with menthols because that’s what I stole from my dad. The minty taste seemed to make it easier to smoke by cutting the harshness. Once I got habituated to that awful garbage taste, I found menthol was too much flavor and I opted for more tobacco-y tasting smokes. Thankfully when my twins were born I found myself too busy to smoke for a couple of years, and I quit and never looked back.
But I know that at least for me personally, as a smoking teenager, menthol made it more approachable or tolerable. Nicotine is a drug, we shouldn’t prohibit folks’ drugs, but I’m pretty soundly against making the drug more appealing or enticing (especially to kids), from flavoring to packaging.
As a teenager, I had the opposite experience. I found menthol repulsive. Of course, the cigs that I stole from my dad were non-menthol.
Maybe it’s just more what you are used to than that the flavor of menthol itself is enticing.
The point here is that they banned “flavored” cigs, with fruit or dessert type flavors, that actually are enticing in and of themselves. I am answering your question as to why menthol was the exception to that, and why the same argument used in banning those sweet flavors doesn’t hold for banning menthol.
I thought you’d rather fight than switch? Traitor!
If I thought this would actually get people to stop smoking I might be okay with it, but I imagine tobacco companies are already working on liquid menthol, cigarette holders with menthol filters or menthol flavored plastic tips like cigarillos have. This will hit menthol smokers with basically another tax, $10+ for a pack of smokes plus $5 for a menthol device that will last for a pack/carton and then need to be replaced.
Proven? No. But proving racist motivations isn’t generally easy, given that racist don’t generally want to admit their racism.
What has been shown, however, is that the outcome of this ban would be racist, as it would significantly affect more black people than white people. It has been shown that there is a history of paternalism towards black people. And the paternalistic argument was actually made in this thread–that black people are “the victims” and that banning menthols is “for their own good.”
It’s unlikely that any racist person is going to admit that racism is their motivation. Thus it makes sense to use outcome-based reasoning–the same sort of reasoning used all the time to figure out why politicians really support an issue.
I can see why someone might naively support this, not knowing the outcome would so thoroughly target black people. But as soon as they are told and continue to pursue this, it’s hard for me to believe the outcome is not the intended one.
This is consistent with how I evaluate other things, like the recent voter restrictions. I don’t care that the people involved don’t directly argue that it will reduce black voting. I care that this is the predicted outcome.
Don’t you think raising the price of a pack to $25 would have a disparate impact on the poor? And what race(s)/ethnicities are disproportionately impacted by poverty? It just seems like giving the same demographic a round-about instead of just fucking them in the ass.
And I think was Joey P who said there isn’t any sort of youth appeal to menthol cigarettes? Holy shit nothing could be further from the truth. Menthol cigarettes are inextricably linked to hip-hop and rap culture and hip-hop and rap culture are basically the defining genres of pop.culture. If a survey was conducted re the preferences of HS smokers in aggregate, my money is on the overwhelming choice being menthol.
And Marlboro does have a menthol variety. Its not even a recent development
Are there, at this time, any promiment mainstrem African-American leaders (political, spiritual, or academic), who are arguing that a ban on menthol cigarettes is racist, or any scientific surveys showing that African-Americans in general think a menthol ban is racist?
I think we should probably establish whether the people we’re being outraged on behalf of are actually outraged.
That was HMS_Irruncible. I was always a Marlboro smoker.
I’m not sure I’d be okay with it even if it were shown to reduce smoking. I’ve posted above about my objections to the selective nature of this ban.
And yes, the tobacco companies will find other ways to sell menthol to smokers. As will other companies (since, unlike vaping products, no actual tobacco product would be required to add menthol
to cigarettes).
And, as shown above, the tobacco companies have a proven track record of working with smugglers and bootleggers. So menthol cigarettes will still be available in your friendly neighborhood bodega, they’ll just be kept out of sight under the counter.
I have no objections to government efforts to reduce and even ultimately eliminate smoking. I do object to a selective ban that will primarily target one group.
Of course it would. But the outcome would most likely be exactly what the outcome was when the price of a pack of cigarettes in New York City hit $14 or $15 (it’s been seven years since I quit, so I don’t know exactly what the price is these days). Massive bootlegging. Especially in less affluent neighborhoods. Basically, if you walk into a bodega in, for example, Brownsville, or parts of Red Hook, or East New York, and you look at all familiar to the person behind the counter, you’ll pay $8 or $9, the retailer will make a bigger profit than he would have on a legitimately taxed pack, and the bootleggers will make a nice buck too. As will the tobacco company.
Yes. Marlboro Green. Fairly popular among menthol smokers (again, at least where I live).
I don’t like selective targeting of particular groups. I think that’s a reasonable position.
It seems like to characterize that position as “outrage” is an attempt trivialize it rather than criticize it on its merits. Or lack thereof. You’re basically calling my position recreational outrage.
No, just the opposite. Big Tobacco, in foisting a more addictive type of smoke on black people are the racist. Trying to end Big Tobaccos preying on blacks and calling it "racist’ is like calling the Emancipation Proclamation “racist” as it only freed black people.
You do not like selective targeting of particular groups? Good, then of course you would be in total support of this ban, as it was Big Tobacco’s selective targeting of particular groups by marketing a more addictive product on the black community that caused this.
I don’t think the evidence is particularly persuasive that menthol is more addictive. When the FDA did a report on some of the pharmacological differences between menthol and regular cigarettes back in like 2013, I think it concluded that while there were some studies showing some things, data was not sufficient for them to actually conclude menthols are intrinsically less healthy than regular tobacco. Likewise the current ban buries a reference to that study quite a bit down its press release. The industry actually gets to weigh in during the FDA rulemaking process, and anything that isn’t scientifically well grounded is going to have trouble holding up under that intense scrutiny. This was one reason the FDA back in 2013 specifically said it wasn’t going to pursue a menthol ban, because it did not believe it would be able to demonstrate to the normal standards of the FDA rulemaking process that they were different enough from regular tobacco products that they intend to allow to remain legal.
FWIW, I would think the addictiveness would have to be dramatically higher than regular cigarettes to justify a targeted ban.
I’ve posted before in some thread about bad debate tactics that I particularly can’t stand the “so, you agree with me that…,” or “so you’re saying that…” when what is supposedly being agreed with or said in fact is not even close to anything I’ve said.
Surely you can understand the difference between selective law-making and enforcement, and selective marketing. I mean, they are quite obviously different things, right?
And, while I may not like tobacco marketing at all, it’s very, very different from the government banning a kind of cigarette that’s overwhelmingly the favorite smoke of a particular ethnic group, and not banning other kinds of cigarettes overwhelmingly favored by other different groups.
As I’ve said above (repeatedly, but you seem to have missed it), I could possibly get behind a total ban on tobacco products.
Why aren’t you in favor of a total ban on tobacco products? Why are you vehemently in favor of banning menthol smokes while not banning the favorite brands of other ethnic groups?
Even if this ban does not have racist intent, it will be perceived as racist by those affected by it.
That scenario will happen. It is 100% probable, despite the attempts of others in the thread to dismiss it or hand-wave it away, that it will be played out several thousand times in the very first day of the ban.
So how do you explain to the Black smoker the justice of taking away his favorite smokes while the white dude can still buy his favorites, right there in the local convenience store?
I’m firmly opposed to any paternalistic approaches to Black communities. However, I find it deeply troubling that people jump to conclusions of paternalism based on a lack of awareness of the strong push made by Black civil rights and health groups for years.
Recently the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, the National Medical Association (which represents Black physicians), the NAACP, and 7 other civil rights and and African American health groups sent a letter to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra recently. The letter read, in part:
“The predatory marketing of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products must be stopped and we should all recognize this as a social justice issue, and one that disproportionately impacts youth and communities of color.”
NAACP’s Youth Against Menthol campaign, which is “aimed at reducing menthol consumption among African-American young adults and promoting policies that protect Black communities from tobacco companies abusive advertising tactics”) is just one of the many attempts to fight for social justice in this issue.
I mean, I’m glad we’re aware of the very real and enduring issue of white paternalism, but the lack of awareness of the fight that Black activists have been waging for years is disappointing.
This I understand, but to use an analogy (which probably will end up being a bad idea), it’s like banning a harmful product that everybody uses, but only banning the kosher version of it. The optics suck. Better to have a massive, targeted education campaign, and treat all cigarettes as dangerous (and tax accordingly), than to single out the favorite cigs of only one group.
Of course I’m behind the many massive anti-smoking education campaigns that have been ongoing for decades now, but there’s a reason the NAACP and the other groups I mentioned are waging a battle against menthol cigarettes in particular and on the marketing ploys that have targeted Black communities: those general campaigns are not effective against the marketing ploys tobacco companies use in targeting Black communities.
Menthol reduces the harshness of smoke due to its cooling effects on the mouth and throat, making it more appealing and easier to smoke.
Types of mentholated tobacco-products include cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos (i.e. Black & Mild), chewing tobacco, hookah, e-cigarettes and vapes.
The tobacco industry intentionally markets to youth and African American communities to attract new “replacement” smokers and keep current smokers addicted.
There are 10x more menthol advertisements and retail promotions in Black communities than in any other neighborhoods.
It’s the targeting of Black communities by the tobacco industry that should be resented here, not whether it’s somehow unfair to target an even more dangerous version of a dangerous product. It’s a social justice issue. I don’t know how to put it more plainly than that.
When did Black and Mild start marketing mentholated cigars? During my HS years I smoked them and there was only one “Black and Mild” and it was not a menthol cigar.
If you know me at all, I am in favor of a total ban on Cigs. Followed in a couple years by cigars, then pipe tobacco.
The black community does not seem to think so, as i have seen no great outcry from them. In fact the opposite, see cite below:
Big Tobacco deliberately targeted black communities and smokers with a massive ad campaign and more addictive product. this is simply the government undoing of that evil.
*The FDA announced Thursday it hopes to ban menthol in cigarettes and cigars, citing its particularly harmful impact on Black communities, to whom they were heavily marketed. William Brangham has more on the FDA’s move and discusses it with Delmonte Jefferson, the executive director at The Center for Black Health & Equity — one of many groups that had been pressuring the FDA to take this step… *William Brangham:
…
For years, menthol cigarettes were marketed heavily to Black communities. And, today, it’s estimated that 85 percent of Black smokers choose menthol brands, like Kool and Newport.
*enthol is an additive that can mask the harshness of tobacco smoke, and it’s believed to make nicotine even more addictive…Joining me now is Delmonte Jefferson. He’s the executive director at The Center for Black Health & Equity, one of many groups that had been pressuring the FDA to take this step… * *Delmonte Jefferson: …
*his goes back to 1990, when tobacco industry tried to come into our communities with menthol products. And we have been fighting this fight since then. And so that’s over 30 years… * *Delmonte Jefferson:
Well, first of all, it’s very troubling how they targeted our communities, how the predatory marketing targeted our communities with their free cigarette sampling vans, with the sponsoring of our concerts and our events, paying off some of our elected officials and church officials to promote their cause.
That’s what’s troubling.
Menthol is a popular cigarette ingredient because it offsets the harsh taste of cigarettes and nicotine irritation by producing a cooling sensation in the throat. This makes it both easier to start smoking and more difficult to quit, said Delmonte Jefferson, executive director of the Center for Black Health & Equity. That’s why, Jefferson said, the FDA’s ban is long-overdue.
“We’re being liberated from the harm of mentholated tobacco products. This is the beginning of that,” Jefferson said, acknowledging that there is a long rule-making process ahead. “The Food and Drug Administration has stood up for the health of Black people. It should have been done over a decade ago. But this says, ‘We’re starting to take our foot off of the necks of Black people.’”
The battle has been in full swing since the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act banned the use of all artificial or natural flavors — except menthol — in an effort to curb youth smoking. Experts have referred to Canada’s menthol ban as proof that prohibiting the flavor could lead to people quitting smoking.
