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

[Twilight Hue]

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?

It's not terrible from a health standpoint.

What's terrible is the inclusion of things like reminding people that there is a difference between white and black people by keeping colors separated and singling out those differences.

I think black people don't need reminders they are black as the health implications impact all people using menthol. Not just one group alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not terrible from a health standpoint.

What's terrible is the inclusion of things like reminding people that there is a difference between white and black people by keeping colors separated and singling out those differences.

I think black people don't need reminders they are black as the health implications impact all people using menthol. Not just one group alone.

So your issue isn't so much with racism or disparities of outcomes for different races, your issue is with people calling attention to these problems.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

So which one is supposed to be reverse racism?

To me, it's still just racism, as in, one race is superior or inferior to (an)others. The "reverse" part doesn't make sense.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

The term 'nanny state' irritates me because those who complain most about protections, restrictions and prohibitions tend to want to remove free education, benefits, health, subsistence and other services from society..... tend to be tax Scrooge's.


I've often wondered if these folk think that the military is a nanny military, after all, all those helmets, body protections..

 

[exchemist]

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.

How can it be revenge on the whites to propose a ban on a type of cigarette mostly smoked by blacks?

Racist paranoia, much?

 

[exchemist]

By the way, I've just got an article from the NY Times on this. I quote the following extract:

The Biden administration is planning to propose a ban on menthol cigarettes, a long-sought public health goal of civil rights and anti-tobacco groups that has been beaten back by the tobacco industry for years, according to a federal health official.

For decades, menthol cigarettes have been marketed aggressively to Black people in the United States. About 85 percent of Black smokers use menthol brands, including Newport and Kool, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Research shows menthol cigarettes are easier to become addicted to and harder to quit than plain tobacco products.

The F.D.A. is being forced to act by a court deadline — a federal district judge in North Carolina had ordered the agency to respond by April 29 to a citizens’ petition to ban menthol. But the odds are unlikely that a ban would take effect anytime soon, because any proposal is likely to wind up in a protracted court battle. The proposal would also include a ban on all mass-produced flavored cigars, including cigarillos, which have become popular with teenagers.

So, far from being a new issue, this has been on the agenda for ages. In fact, further on in the article it seems even the Trump administration tried to ban these, bu retreated in the face of opposition from legislators from the tobacco states.

Importantly, it seems the marketing has for decades been targeted at blacks.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How can it be revenge on the whites to propose a ban on a type of cigarette mostly smoked by blacks?

Racist paranoia, much?

Not unless you think black people need reminders and not whites as well as if they need to be told what they can and cannot smoke as a choice.

Do you think dark skinned people are so dumb as not to realize what the risks are by now?

 

[exchemist]

Not unless you think black people need reminders and not whites as well as if they need to be told what they can and cannot smoke as a choice.

Do you think dark skinned people are so dumb as not to realize what the risks are by now?

So how is this revenge on the whites, then?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So your issue isn't so much with racism or disparities of outcomes for different races, your issue is with people calling attention to these problems.

My issue is the constant separation of people into ethnic groups and making sure those differences stay reinforced.

 

[exchemist]

My issue is the constant separation of people into ethnic groups and making sure those differences stay reinforced.

Well you could start, then, with the marketing departments of the tobacco companies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So how is this revenge on the whites, then?

It isn't. It gives the impression that, for whatever reason, black people are simply to dumb to understand and therefore need singling out more than other separated ethnic groups.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well you could start, then, with the marketing departments of the tobacco companies.

Like these black people in the 50s at the height of racism?

 

[exchemist]

It isn't. It gives the impression that, for whatever reason, black people are simply to dumb to understand and therefore need singling out more than other separated ethnic groups.

So you now dismiss one of the two possibilities that you yourself raised in post 40, only 2 hours ago?

 

[exchemist]

Like these black people in the 50s at the height of racism?

That is one ad from the 1950s that proves nothing. I can play that game too, see?

The NY Times report states they have been marketed aggressively to blacks "for decades". That does not have to include all the way back to the 1950s. Obviously. There have been a further 6 decades since then, right?

Here's a link to the article for you: Biden Administration Plans to Propose Banning Menthol Cigarettes

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My issue is the constant separation of people into ethnic groups and making sure those differences stay reinforced.

I can't reconcile this with your complaints in the OP.

 

[Stevicus]

The term 'nanny state' irritates me because those who complain most about protections, restrictions and prohibitions tend to want to remove free education, benefits, health, subsistence and other services from society..... tend to be tax Scrooge's.


I've often wondered if these folk think that the military is a nanny military, after all, all those helmets, body protections..

I wondered about the nanny military, so I did a search, and I got pictures of English nannies in new uniforms. I guess there's a college for nannies over in your neck of the woods.

Mary Poppins with an attitude.

 

[oldbadger]

I wondered about the nanny military, so I did a search, and I got pictures of English nannies in new uniforms. I guess there's a college for nannies over in your neck of the woods.

Mary Poppins with an attitude.

Wow!
Unfortunately I'm too old to need one, and anyway, the Missus wouldn't allow it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is one ad from the 1950s that proves nothing. I can play that game too, see?

The NY Times report states they have been marketed aggressively to blacks "for decades". That does not have to include all the way back to the 1950s. Obviously. There have been a further 6 decades since then, right?

Here's a link to the article for you: Biden Administration Plans to Propose Banning Menthol Cigarettes

I'm just illustrating the marketing is responsive not to race but to the only color businesses ever see.

The color green and to whomever is giving the most of it.

 

[exchemist]

I'm just illustrating the marketing is responsive not to race but to the only color businesses ever see.

The color green and to whomever is giving the most of it.

No, you illustrate nothing. The fact is that menthol cigarettes have been aggressively marketed to blacks for decades.

Marketers do that sort of thing: it's called segmenting the market. They use market research to find what groups ("segments") within the market are receptive to certain ways of appealing to them and they exploit these to target products at these segments. Nothing stops them from using race as a criterion and I am sure it gets used quite a lot.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, you illustrate nothing. The fact is that menthol cigarettes have been aggressively marketed to blacks for decades.

Marketers do that sort of thing: it's called segmenting the market. They use market research to find what groups ("segments") within the market are receptive to certain ways of appealing to them and they exploit these to target products at these segments. Nothing stops them from using race as a criterion and I am sure it gets used quite a lot.

So you think dark skinned people need their personal decisions forced on them by big government?