Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 273 posts

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#151

Post by bustin »

I must have missed the memo that Prohibition worked after we banned alcohol and weed.

This is a ridiculous overreach. The end game is for people to stop smoking altogether, and while that would be good for American health, this is so unnecessary. It is not the prerogative of our peers to maintain our health.

It is our free right to poison ourselves in the ways we desire. In ten years from now when cigarettes are fully illegal and those "darn ignorant poor people who just can't help themselves because they don't know any better" continue to swell up and die from overeating, are we, the wealthy class, going to dictate what they are allowed to eat?

I wish these were rhetorical questions but as we continue to socialize the cost of medicine we need to be very explicit that we are OK paying for others' bad decisions as part of the package. If not, we should not socialize the cost. Dictating what risky behavior is allowed is the wrong move, because there is no limiting principle.

For example, in a world where we dictate like this, how long until we ban climbing rope because it makes it too easy to climb rock faces, which leads to injury and socialized health-care costs?

This ban is a serious assault on American freedom and a return to puritan morality.

EDIT: some phrasing, may affect the comment below :(

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#152

Post by atlasunshrugged »

timClicks wrote: post #50
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the government wanting to protect the health of folks (or if you're a cynic like me, making sure that citizens are productive for longer and don't use as many healthcare resources) but this feels super paternalistic. Why not just dramatically increase the taxes so people can still choose to pay a high price if they want to?

Because addicts are not price sensitive.

Some are. Stealing this from a post above

A 10% increase in tobacco price results in a 4% decrease in tobacco demand: https://www.who.int/tobacco/economics/taxation/en/

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#153

Post by BitwiseFool »

dawnerd wrote: post #120
chmod600 wrote: post #32

At what point do we say that we've just given up on the concept of freedom? For what behaviors will we say: "That's a really bad idea, but go ahead and suffer the consequences if you want to do it"? It seems we are moving in the direction of zero consequences first. By the time you have medical bills from smoking too much, you're on medicare, so it's not coming out of your children's inheritance. And then after the c…

Freedoms are fine until companies are doing whatever they can to make something so addictive it's near impossible for someone to quit without suffering or spending lots of money. It's not just a someone choses to smoke. It's they got hooked, usually by deceptive advertising or peer pressure. Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building codes?

>"Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building codes?"

Obviously not, but those are different arguments about the concept of "freedom" and government regulation. A more relevant comparison would be about outlawing trans-fats, regulating the size of soda, portion sizes, flavored e-cigs, etc.

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#155

Post by __blockcipher__ »

garciasn wrote: post #107
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are menthol cigarettes more harmful than regular ones? The menthol just makes it easier to smoke more. Is that the crux of your argument? I find the “company X is targeting [arbitrary subcategory]” argument to be totally asinine btw. Is Krispy Kreme targeting fat people by offering free donuts for people that get COVID-19 vaccines? Lastly there is nothing more patronizing than telling a black person that you’re p…

https://jag.journalagent.com/tkd/pdfs/TKDA_37_4_234_240.pdf From the paper: Its cooling effect may contribute to the intensity of smoking (deeper inhalation and/or more prolonged breath holding) resulting in greater exposure to tobacco smoke toxins. The effect of menthol through increasing the permeability of cell membranes results in a greater absorption of smoked toxins [2,3] Ahijevych and Garrett[2] reported highe…

Thanks for the citation.

I should mention I oppose these bans regardless of whether menthol really is or isn’t dangerous, but interesting to know it increases cellular permeability. And seems like a good bit of increased heart/cardiac effects.

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#156

Post by oh_sigh »

LargeWu wrote: post #133
chmod600 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When paternalistic policies are directed at particular demographics, it is kinda disturbing. I mean, sure, there's a reason. But there always is, and it makes me wonder if a line is being crossed here that will set a bad precedent.

The entire "paternalistic" argument rests on the premise that the choice to smoke, or not, is for most people purely rational, and totally discounts the predatory nature of tobacco companies and the addiction that comes with it. Menthols are targeted at blacks, and especially black children, since the menthol flavoring makes them more pleasant to smoke. Of the 20 million American menthol smokers, 17 million of those…

There are only 42 million black people in the US. Are you really saying that 40% of black Americans smoke menthols specifically? And presumably some percentage smoke something without menthol? That doesn't seem right.

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#158

Post by jedberg »

techrat wrote: post #64
kube-system wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tax cigarettes to the equivalent or greater than the amount of dollars of burden they place on the healthcare system. Make smokers pay for their own choices. Externalized costs are the root of many seemingly insurmountable societal problems, and most can be fixed by simply accounting for the costs appropriately.

You're getting dangerously close to the whole "social credit" style of cost burden. Slippery slope, bud. Now what? Your healthcare costs should go up because you like your eggs fried and with salt instead of hard boiled?

No, but it would make sense to put a health tax on salt. Make people bear their external costs. Like a carbon tax.

Just make sure you have a dividend that goes back to the poor to make up for the regressiveness of such taxes.

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#159

Post by jolux »

ketzo wrote: post #4

I’m extremely in favor of harm-reduction legislation in general, and I think this ban is a good idea overall. Flavors are effective at hooking young people in particular — lots of vaping research has shown that — and so get it outta here. Great. But man, “ban menthols because Black people like them” sure feels a little weird. Like, I get that’s not exactly what’s going on. But.. it’s a little bit what’s going on? I g…

Probably important to note that this was being pushed for by a lot of Black health organizations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/16/civil-right...

Re: FDA Moves to Ban All Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars

#160

Post by RacfeelBudkind »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #85
ketzo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking is really, really, really bad for you. It’s much worse, and much harder to stop, the earlier you start. Banning flavors 1) stops some overall consumption 2) especially stops youth consumption. Lifetime healthcare costs for the negative externalities of a pack-a-day smoker can reach into seven figures. And most people, frankly, don’t pay that themselves. It’s a tremendous burden on our healthcare system. We ba…

>We ban lead paint, even though it’s super cheap and makes for vibrant colors. I honestly don’t see how this is any different. That's totally different. Lead paint leads to a ton of environmental exposure to unwitting people. Smokers by contrast have made a choice to smoke. Do you want them to ban bacon and soda too? Where's the line? Should we ban motorcycles because they're more dangerous than cars? What about recr…

> Do you want them to ban bacon ... Where's the line?

There's a factor 30 of leeway on where to draw the line:

> How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

> about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

> ...

> about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/cancer-carcinogenic...

Post reply on HN