So, will they once again market cigarette tubes, loose tobacco, and machines like the Laredo?
Will the law affect bulk tobacco sales?
Baby steps.
You do not seem to realize that every year more and more smokers quit. So yes, some will smoke something else- but a few will quit. That’s the facts.
Secondhand smoke is mostly bullshit.
Sure. Absolutely. And that’s what tax hikes, ad bans, restrictions on promotional giveaways, and so on are. I’m all in favor of that kind of thing.
I don’t realize that every year more and more smokers quit? That’s ridiculous. I am, after all, one of those former smokers. As are most (not all) of the smokers I’ve known in my life.
Also, your support of a targeted ad seems to be based, at least in party, on predatory advertising to the Black community.
The tobacco companies have engaged in similar targeted marketing to women.
As I asked above, what about women? All those Virginia Slims and Eve and Capri cigarettes? Should 100mm and 120mm and extra slim cigarettes be banned too? After all, they’re mostly smoked by, and entirely marketed to, women. Isn’t that predatory?
Should we ban those brands? Those extra-long cigarettes?
The text of the FDA’s latest move has not yet been published, but the 2009 ban on other cigarette flavors required the feds to monitor and report on exports of cigarettes that did not meet US product standards (and only cigarettes with “characterizing flavors” other than tobacco or menthol fail to meet those standards). “Based on those establishment inspection reports that have been finalized, FDA has found no evidence, through its inspections, of the exportation of non-conforming flavored cigarettes or their component parts (including the tobacco, filters, or paper).”–2018 version of report (PDF!) The companies themselves claim that as a result of the domestic ban, they’re not making flavored cigarettes for export either.
It’s worth noting that the main destination of US tobacco products exported (cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, etc.) is Canada, which takes more than half of US exports and already has its own ban on menthol cigs.
While I am quite certain of the ability to Chinese counterfeiters to produce menthol cigs, dealing with Chinese smugglers is a whole other ballgame compared to running up to the rez with a van and loading up on products sold quite legally in the stores there, which is what you posited in #156.
Yes, that is the last paragraph which reads:The problem has only been exacerbated by Massachusetts’ ban this year on all flavored cigarettes, which traditionally have been popular in communities of color, he said. That ban includes menthol cigarettes, which has resulted in steep sales declines in convenience stores and widespread illicit street sales.
But if you read the whole article the smuggling is mainly due to high Mass taxes on cigs. Not due to the fact that Mass banned menthols.
Next.
Well, sure, because those flavored smokes accounted for a trivial fraction of the market for regular and menthol smokes. Nobody really cared. Nobody even noticed.
Yes. And Canada started hiking cigarette taxes long before the US (states) did. I remember being in Montreal in maybe 1992 or 1993, in a bar somewhere, and a cigarette seller came in to sell bootleg smokes to the patrons.
Also, the Canadian cigarette market is not the same as the US market. For one thing, Canadians aren’t particular into American brands (although the tobacco may be grown in the United States). Speaking as a (former) American smoker who spends a lot of time in Canada (because I’m married to a Canadian, and we’re close with the inlaws), Canadian cigarettes are horrible. But they seem to like them.
Also, to say that there hasn’t been smuggling of menthol cigarettes after Canada’s ban doesn’t tell us much without knowing what the demand for menthols was before the ban. Someone above posted something about Nova Scotia. Was there any significant demand in Nova Scotia before the ban?
And my main objection to the ban has been that it will be perceived (with some justification) as being aimed at one particular group, i.e., Black smokers. In Canada, and even more so in the maritime provinces, the Black population is a fraction of what it is in the United States. So a menthol ban in Canada might not raise the same issues.
Nice of you to step in and act as a financial consultant to those working people. Anything else you feel they shouldn’t “waste” their money on? Maybe there are more cost-effective, and healthier, ways for them to spend their money on food, too. Are you going to propose a ban on Big Macs? Pork rinds?
Sheesh. Talk about paternalistic.
Also, if you’re that worried about the cost of smoking to working people, you could just argue for a reduction in cigarette taxes.
Yes, I know you are on the same page here, I was just trying to articulate the issue in a little bit more detail. The bottom line is that the Democrats cannot in good conscience try to do this shit and then ask why their support has dwindled with the working class. I see pious posts on Facebook every day from educated academics and armchair political wonks who live in $450,000 houses, about how it’s the DEMOCRATS who support unions, it’s the DEMOCRATS who support higher wages, it’s the DEMOCRATS who are the friends of the workin’ man so Christ almighty WHY oh WHY can’t the poor workin’ man stop voting against his own interests and support the Democratic Party already?!?! These exasperated choir-preachers, by and large, have never worked a working-class job.
We would not have to be paternalistic if Big Tobaccos had not lied and targeted blacks, women, and kids.
This simply counters Big Tobaccos evil schemes.
I agree without reservation with every word you just posted.
Except that you’re seriously underestimating the value of their houses.
Moving the goalposts now, are we?
Not at all. No one doubts cig smuggling has occurred -but it is because of high taxes, not due to a flavor being banned.
Show me where menthols only are being smuggled due to a ban on them.
So, you’re saying the fact that menthol smuggling is worse due to the ban does not count? Sure looks like a goalpost has been moved.
No, it is science:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm#:~:text=Secondhand%20smoke%20is%20the%20combination,Health%20Effects%20of%20Secondhand%20Smoke
There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.1,2,6 Comprehensive smokefree policies have been successful in protecting those who do not smoke, and are the only way to fully protect their health.1,2,7
Health Effects in Adults
In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:
** Heart disease*
-
- For adults who do not smoke, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.1,4,6*
-
- Secondhand smoke causes nearly 34,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among adults who do not smoke.1*
-
- People who do not smoke, but are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work, experience a 25-30% increase in their risk of developing heart disease. 1*
** Lung cancer1,8*
- People who do not smoke, but are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work, experience a 25-30% increase in their risk of developing heart disease. 1*
-
- Secondhand smoke exposure causes more than 7,300 deaths from lung cancer among people who do not smoke.1*
** Stroke1*
- Secondhand smoke exposure causes more than 7,300 deaths from lung cancer among people who do not smoke.1*
** * Each year, more than 8,000 deaths from stroke can be attributed to secondhand smoke.1*
Chronic diseases such as these are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States. They may also increase risk with respect to other illnesses.1
Health Effects in Infants and Children
** Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually.1*
-
- Adults exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have newborns with lower birth weight, increasing the risk of health complications.2*
** Infants exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have significantly higher risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).1,2,3*
- Adults exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have newborns with lower birth weight, increasing the risk of health complications.2*
** * Chemicals in secondhand smoke appear to affect the brain in ways that interfere with its regulation of infants’ breathing.2,3*
-
- Infants who die from SIDS have higher concentrations of nicotine in their lungs and higher levels of cotinine than infants who die from other causes.2,3*
** Exposure to secondhand smoke causes multiple health problems in infants and young children, including: 1,2,3*
-
- Ear infections*
-
- Respiratory symptoms (coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath)*
-
- Acute lower respiratory infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia*
** Children with asthma who encounter secondhand smoke have more severe and more frequent asthma attacks. 1,2,3*
- Acute lower respiratory infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia*
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/index.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5935a4.htm?s_cid=mm5935a4_w
The goal of this board is to fight ignorance, not spread it.
Most of the science on secondhand smoke is exaggerated and has proven to not hold up under later scrutiny, the risks from secondhand smoke appear to be minor, and now that we have to my knowledge an all but national ban on smoking in most public accommodations and other enclosed public spaces, I do not believe secondhand smoke is a significant matter of public interest. People exposed to secondhand smoke in private homes are not the purview of government.
By the way if you check the Slate link it makes very specific links to peer reviewed scientific articles specifically saying many of the claims of some years ago about heart risks from even “minimal” secondhand smoke are not supported by larger, higher quality data sets. I note this because the heart stuff is one of the first things mentioned in the CDC link you provided and the actual data doesn’t hold up very well for that. Unfortunately while the CDC is a decent public health organization, it tends to be glacial at revising guidelines based off of further additional study, not just as pertains to smoking but a great many things (the CDC continued to have guidance up about sanitizing surfaces for coronavirus for ages after we knew it was nonsense.)
I’m in the Rust Belt where housing is more affordable. It’s getting less rusty, fortunately, and property values are going up.
It gets worse. Some people are claiming that there’s such a thing as “third hand smoke”. No.