The nanny state and racist menthol cigarettes. God save the black community.

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never preferred menthol, because I was concerned that the menthol would damage my lungs faster than the Marlboro Reds. My thought process then.

I didn't smoke methods as my regular cig as those are for sissies (Camel Crush was nice, though). American Spirit Black was my regular.

 

[The Hammer]

I say ban all tobacco and alcohol. Because we've tolerated these nasty vices for so long now that these hippie liberals are successfully legalizing wacky weed everywhere now.
Being "cool" might impress your friends, but not God.
My dad died from it but was saved on his deathbed. I still remember the smell of burning plastic after we threw his rock/metal cassettes into the bonfire. Our pastor (at the time) swears he saw am image of the devil in the flames.

Mmmm wacky devil's lettuce

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can understand the medical aspects as it relates to vulnerability based on ethnicity. That's not really my focus but my question is why even bring someone's race into the picture at all?

Why not just point out why menthol is harmful and the reasons why some people want it banned.

I'm actually trying to point out there is no need to remind anyone with dark skin as if they dont realise or don't understand any of this in order to point out the issue with menthol.

I think it would be an insult to a person's intelligence as if white people understand this and black people don't and require special mention.

It led me to wonder if this is really about menthol or is it really about a persons race?

Why not just leave it exclusively as a health issue and the nanny states intentions to ban menthol without the need for throwing a persons race into it?

I don't entirely disagree. I do not believe myself to be racist (but who am I to judge?) but I cannot help but know that racism exists -- and that it exists powerfully. It is entirely possible that I hold subjective views that could be deemed racist, and maybe I'm just trying to ignore them -- like I used to ignore the craving for a cigarette 18 years ago when I quit after 39 years as a smoker. And I discovered that I could not ignore it. I had to reason with myself; I had to understand for myself what was causing the craving, and then hold that up against my reasons for quitting in the first place -- so that my reason, not my id, could win that skirmish and eventually the entire war.

I think, actually, that may be key. So many Americans are convinced that not only are they not racist, neither is the nation. But I say, until you can recognize and grapple with whatever your problem is, you have no hope whatever of dealing effectively with it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I didn't smoke methods as my regular cig as those are for sissies (Camel Crush was nice, though). American Spirit Black was my regular.

Actually, even those became too weak. I was chain smoking Djarum Blacks last year. Lol. Now I've just gone back to vaping, when it comes to nicotine.

 

[exchemist]

Why do blacks always get mentioned now? To still show just how different black people and white people are?

Yea this used to a slave country and there were a lot of bad people doing bad and horrible things to each other. I'm not for forgetting that but there comes a time to just stop showing how different people are and just carry on side by side and refer to one another without a pathological need for designating ethnicity.

Unless of course, the motivation is to get a revenge on white people with a little reverse racism as payback and turn the tables like in parts of South Africa.

I think folks can make their own decisions on if they choose menthol or not and especially as if people of color are so obtuse it's worth mentioning their color outright so they don't forget. I would see that as insulting.

The article you referred to was not addressed to blacks, nor did it patronise them in any way. It was simply factual. One of those facts is this is a thing that affect the black population more than the white population, resulting in poorer health for them specifically. There is nothing racist in stating that. Facts are not racist.

It is YOU that is bringing up the issue of racism, quite gratuitously. I ask myself why.

 

[oldbadger]

Yep. It's in. Menthol cigarettes are racist and has to go says the big state.

The FDA could ban menthol cigarettes this week. Experts say Black Americans would benefit most.

OK dokie..... yea....

You know..... People simply can't make their own decisions, and needs the big state to tell them what to do.

Oh please.
Your interpretation of the FDA's explanation is very dodgy.
Our countries have been weaning us off cigs for years, and it's not about nanny state, but common sense .....

Are you a smoker.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The article you referred to was not addressed to blacks, nor did it patronise them in any way. It was simply factual. One of those facts is this is a thing that affect the black population more than the white population, resulting in poorer health for them specifically. There is nothing racist in stating that. Facts are not racist.

It is YOU that is bringing up the issue of racism, quite gratuitously. I ask myself why.

Obviously YOU didn't read the article.

Snippet from the article..

"Some advocates of a menthol ban say a national focus on the Black Lives Matter movement may spur the agency to take action now.

"Covid-19 and the racial awakening we had last summer exposed the inequities in our system," Jefferson said. Menthol "is just another example of the health inequities that have plagued African Americans for generations."

Obviously it is addressed to blacks and suggests systemic racism exists hence another term "health inequities" is being introduced here.

So that would suggest menthol is a racist practice since it kills mostly black people.

Read fully next time before you deny racism is involved because that's what the article itself accuses, with the inclusion of menthol as being a part of systemic racism and is most certainly directed at blacks that YOU blatantly deny.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh please.
Your interpretation of the FDA's explanation is very dodgy.
Our countries have been weaning us off cigs for years, and it's not about nanny state, but common sense .....

Are you a smoker.

It certainly is the nanny state.

People can make their own informed choices or has it been determined by someone that they are too dumb and stupid to the point that need the big state to dictate what they can or cannot do with their bodies?

And no, I am not a smoker but I used to. I do protect smoker rights however.

 

[oldbadger]

It certainly is the nanny state.

What, like pavements for pedestrians, or speed limits, or health and safety provisions?
Communities that care for people are simply caring, and I expect that you would not do very well in a wild wild west scenario. Not at all.

People can make their own informed choices or has it been determined by someone that they are too dumb and stupid to the point that need the big state to dictate what they can or cannot do with their bodies?

If you think that seat belt laws, asbestos rules, various drug controls, the work of the FDA and more are not needed, then I can't see any sense in your position.

And no, I am not a smoker but I used to. I do protect smoker rights however.

So why don't you smoke now?
The 'nanny state' get to you?

By the way, your pretense that the FDA is racist is such a crank idea, really.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What, like pavements for pedestrians, or speed limits, or health and safety provisions?
Communities that care for people are simply caring, and I expect that you would not do very well in a wild wild west scenario. Not at all.

If you think that seat belt laws, asbestos rules, various drug controls, the work of the FDA and more are not needed, then I can't see any sense in your position.

So why don't you smoke now?
The 'nanny state' get to you?

By the way, your pretense that the FDA is racist is such a crank idea, really.

You haven't read the article either. The ban is being proposed to the FDA.

I also think people have a right to make their own decisions about what they can or cannot do in regards to products that have health warnings.

Especially in light the big nanny state wants to ban menthol, but advocates the freedom for people to smoke weed? .. .. .

Additionally, how that compares to roads and infrastructure is something your going to have to explain, because I see it as a case of false equivalence.

Also the racist angle is something you can take up with the articles author who parrots the phrase "health inequalities" and BLM references.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep. It's in. Menthol cigarettes are racist and has to go says the big state.

The FDA could ban menthol cigarettes this week. Experts say Black Americans would benefit most.

OK dokie..... yea....

You know..... People simply can't make their own decisions, and needs the big state to tell them what to do.

As soon as cigarettes stop being addictive, maybe your complaints about the "big state" would have some merit.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As soon as cigarettes stop being addictive, maybe your complaints about the "big state" would have some merit.

It's not about the addiction. It's all about personal choice and deciding for one's self, as opposed to the deep state deciding for you.

 

[oldbadger]

You haven't read the article either. The ban is being proposed to the FDA.

So it's not a ban after all, it's a proposal!

I also think people have a right to make their own decisions about what they can or cannot do in regards to products that have health warnings.

So in your world with your kind of government people would be free, eh? What kind of government would that be?

Especially in light the big nanny state wants to ban menthol, but advocates the freedom for people to smoke weed? .. .. .

Wants to ban..... so not banned!
Advocates to allow weed....... but still banned in most States?

Additionally, how that compares to roads and infrastructure is something your going to have to explain, because I see it as a case of false equivalence.

So you don't mind rules for driving and mandatory seat belt wearing etc, and these rules are reasonable, but protections against certain drinks, foods, drugs is nannying?

Also the racist angle is something you can take up with the articles author who parrots the phrase "health inequalities" and BLM references.

No......... you chucked the racist accusation, don't now redirect me some place else.

 

[Stevicus]

What, like pavements for pedestrians, or speed limits, or health and safety provisions?
Communities that care for people are simply caring, and I expect that you would not do very well in a wild wild west scenario. Not at all.

If you think that seat belt laws, asbestos rules, various drug controls, the work of the FDA and more are not needed, then I can't see any sense in your position.

So why don't you smoke now?
The 'nanny state' get to you?

By the way, your pretense that the FDA is racist is such a crank idea, really.

As far as seat belt laws, there has been a fair amount of opposition to that. I remember a lot of people didn't like it and resisted those laws when they first started being introduced. I remember hearing that among the biggest advocates for seat belt laws were automobile manufacturers. I don't know if that qualifies as a "nanny state," although I can see where some people are coming from on this issue.

However, the term "nanny state" carries the implication that the leadership in our society actually cares, which I might sometimes question. Sometimes, it looks to me like they just want people to think they care. It seems more a matter of political expediency than anything else.

The nanny state has also taken different forms, I suppose. The enactment of Prohibition might be an earlier example, but that turned out to be a disaster, much as it has turned out for the modern nanny state which is obsessed with a war on drugs. There were people who wanted to ban jazz because they thought it was the "devil's music." Now that's some real "nanny state" right there - or at least an advocacy for one.

On the other hand, drug abuse and alcoholism are serious problems in this society - problems which are severely pronounced among the poor and lower classes. But the current practices of the War on Drugs (which has its initial origins in earlier eras of systemic racism) are simply not working. Nanny just doesn't seem to know what she is doing much of the time, so the idea of "ban this," "limit that," and impose more and more rules upon the common people doesn't go over very well. Even if it's paved with good intentions, and even if Nanny really does care, deep down inside - we might consider alternative methods of achieving the same goal.

Another thing to consider is that, in practice, it will turn out to be another excuse for police officers to harass Black people. What if menthol cigarettes are banned, and a Black person is standing on the street smoking illegal menthol cigarettes? The police would be duty-bound to approach them, arrest them, and confiscate their cigarettes. Another unnecessary encounter which would have the potential for turning deadly. There would be many encounters like this of the kind of we've seen in the past when police go after people on piddly violations - and this would be just another to add to the list. There would be a new underground market for menthol cigarettes, which could lead to other kinds of problems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not about the addiction. It's all about personal choice and deciding for one's self, as opposed to the deep state deciding for you.

Addiction and personal choice are the same issue.

Addiction speaks directly to whether you actually are deciding for themselves. Chemical dependency hampers your ability to make free choices.

Personally, I see government regulations like these as restoring the conditions of a real free market by addressing externalities, market failures, market distortions, etc... or in cases where these problems can't be addressed, limiting the harm of these problems through regulation.

 

[exchemist]

Obviously YOU didn't read the article.

Snippet from the article..

"Some advocates of a menthol ban say a national focus on the Black Lives Matter movement may spur the agency to take action now.

"Covid-19 and the racial awakening we had last summer exposed the inequities in our system," Jefferson said. Menthol "is just another example of the health inequities that have plagued African Americans for generations."

Obviously it is addressed to blacks and suggests systemic racism exists hence another term "health inequities" is being introduced here.

So that would suggest menthol is a racist practice since it kills mostly black people.

Read fully next time before you deny racism is involved because that's what the article itself accuses, with the inclusion of menthol as being a part of systemic racism and is most certainly directed at blacks that YOU blatantly deny.

Health inequities are a statistical fact, too.

You seem to be under the impression that any statistics that correlate aspects of social wellbeing with race are "racist". Even more bizarrely, you also seem to be under the impression that any goods bought predominantly by blacks are "racist".

That is not what racist means. Racism is prejudice or antagonism towards members of a different race from your own. The sort of thing that shows up, for example, as veiled resentment, when people try to reduce the disadvantages faced by certain racial groups.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Back in my smoking days I smoked menthol.
My go to was Marlboro Smooth.
It was like smoking a York Peppermint Patty.
The original ones, not these new hardly mint flavoured ones they have now.

Oh man, those babies are strong!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yep. It's in. Menthol cigarettes are racist and has to go says the big state.

The FDA could ban menthol cigarettes this week. Experts say Black Americans would benefit most.

OK dokie..... yea....

You know..... People simply can't make their own decisions, and needs the big state to tell them what to do.

Form the article:

"The vast majority of Black smokers — 85 percent — use menthol cigarettes. And Black men and women are much less likely than white Americans to be diagnosed with lung cancer at an earlier, potentially more treatable stage. Black men have the highest lung cancer death rate in the country.

"When you combine high rates of smoking with systematic racism in health care systems, you have a tremendous health disparity," said Erika Sward, national assistant vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health recently announced plans to address structural racism in health care."



Sorry, what's so terrible here?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do blacks always get mentioned now? To still show just how different black people and white people are?

Yea this used to a slave country and there were a lot of bad people doing bad and horrible things to each other. I'm not for forgetting that but there comes a time to just stop showing how different people are and just carry on side by side and refer to one another without a pathological need for designating ethnicity.

Unless of course, the motivation is to get a revenge on white people with a little reverse racism as payback and turn the tables like in parts of South Africa.

I think folks can make their own decisions on if they choose menthol or not and especially as if people of color are so obtuse it's worth mentioning their color outright so they don't forget. I would see that as insulting.

What on earth is "reverse racism?"
Wouldn't that be just like, not racist?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What on earth is "reverse racism?"
Wouldn't that be just like, not racist?

I have two possibilities I personally see here going on.

One is the genuine honest desire to end racism equitably placing all on an equal platform of accessibility and opportunity for which I would hope to see happen before I keel over. It dosent use any skin color whatsoever for any type of leverage that elevates one over another.

The other is oriented, as I see it, on pure revenge that harbors the mentality that it's time to minimize whites and maximize blacks whenever possible. A justified payback for all the perceived and actual abuses of dark skinned people by white skinned people over the course of time for which racism simply changes 'sides'* primarily using one's color to achieve an ends to a means by benefitting one group of people at the expense of the other through various means including legislation and other legal tools.

*Like what had happened in areas of south Africa.