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

171–180 of 273 posts

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

#171

Post by bluecalm »

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…

I mean who cares? There is approximately 0% black people in my country. When menthols got banned some people who liked them got annoyed.

Just don't let the crazies make everything about race. About all policies are going affect some demographics more than other.

Banning menthol cigarettes is an easy choice if you accept some paternalistic policies. Big win for little cost.

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

#172

Post by jolux »

heavyset_go wrote: post #144
nprz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some how the democratic party is in favor of prohibiting the use of menthol cigarettes, but they're also in favor of legalizing marijuana? Very weird.

> but they're also in favor of legalizing marijuana? Very weird. In every state that it's been legalized in, weed is heavily regulated. Weed must be tested for adulterants, heavy metals and mold contamination before it is sold. Some states even regulate the amount of active compounds that are present in the marijuana. In the states I'm familiar with, it's also illegal to package, market or sell marijuana in manners t…

Cannabis in Massachusetts has to be sealed in child-proof containers before leaving the point of sale, too.

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

#173

Post by rcoveson »

awillen wrote: post #22
veilrap wrote: post #8

This just feels like a continuation of the failed war on drugs... I don't smoke, but I have no problem with allowing people to do so in private spaces. Why do we insist on micromanaging peoples lives?

Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for those people who don't have private insurance, they're saddling society with the costs of their choices. In general I lean libertarian and agree that banning things isn't great, but if you want to make your own choices, you have to bear the costs of those choices. If you want to waive your right to government funded healthcare, then you ought to be able to mak…

> Because our tax dollars pay for Medicare/Medicaid, so for those people who don't have private insurance, they're saddling society with the costs of their choices.

This may sound pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction: Society has saddled society with the costs of their choices. It's not the self-destructive choice maker's fault.

If a child in public school willfully refuses to practice cursive, they may require additional instruction and resources. I wouldn't say that child is "saddling society with the costs of their choices". They're just living the life they were born to, and society is obsessing over them.

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

#174

Post by __blockcipher__ »

jolux wrote: post #127
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the problem with socialized medicine. Once you institute it now your body belongs to the state. You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Prohibition is wrong. It’s not just unethical but impractical. And congrats, now cops aren’t just going to claim they smell weed in my car, they’re going to claim they smell menthol too. — Also your “waive your right…

>You’re not allowed to put something deemed bad in your body because the “people” have to pay for it. Has any country with socialized medicine actually banned tobacco fully? Genuinely curious. If they haven't then I don't understand why regulation isn't continuous with the current regime, where smokers have to pay a lot more for health insurance. These problems do not go away in a free market system, insurance compan…

Being incentivized by paying for your increased risk via decentralized market dynamics is fine. Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine.

Unaware what countries have fully banned tobacco. Without looking it up at all...maybe singapore? They seem like the type.

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

#175

Post by atlasunshrugged »

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…

Does the entire paternalistic argument really rest on that? What if you believe humans are rarely entirely rational and it's a spectrum (e.g. If I was addicted to heroin but trying to quit I'd probably be less rational when I really wanted a fix than if I was a pack a day smoker doing the same)?

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

#176

Post by jmcgough »

gburdell3 wrote: post #98
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…

Flavors aren't effective at hooking young people, nicotine is. Nobody smokes because it tastes good, menthol or not. This is just another ban that makes some people feel good about themselves while pissing off the rest. I lean pretty far left, but this is the kind of meaningless ban that makes people hate Democrats.

Part of the argument for this is that Menthol actually makes it less harsh on your throat, so it's easier for new smokers to start with Menthols.

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

#177

Post by throwawayboise »

endisneigh wrote: post #3

I wonder if there’s ever been a study comparing the effects of banning compared to ultra high taxation of products. I understand that there are groups that are negatively affected but is banning even effective in improving health outcomes in this case? In my imaginary world the tax would be extremely high and diverted to things in the same area that have the opposite effect: e.g make cheeseburgers more expensive and…

Make the tax high enough and you just create illegal markets. We should have learned from Prohibition and the War on Drugs that if people want to get high, they will find a way, and other people will be happy to provide what they are looking for.

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

#178

Post by samatman »

vvanpo wrote: post #7

On the one hand, I understand that complete prohibition for drugs and alcohol just don't work. But I have a difficult time squaring that against my feelings towards tobacco, where I feel it would be so much easier for me to quit if I wasn't tempted by its availability at every corner store.

I completely quit smoking tobacco.

By switching to flavored vape cartridges, which the FDA then helpfully made illegal in a fit of moral panic.

Pity, because as far as anyone can tell, vaping is at least two orders of magnitude less deleterious to health than smoking.

So these days I refill my old cartridges and nurse a grudge against FDA. I haven't backslid to smoking, but if they ban high-nicotine salt juice entirely, I don't know what I'm going to do.

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

#179

Post by howeyc »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57
howeyc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing how positions differ. I'm of the opinion you can ruin your own body all you want. As long as you don't breath it into my face, have at it. I wouldn't advise anyone to take up smoking though. I think you should be able to buy cocaine (as an example) as easily as tobacco.

I have seen too many addicts slowly kill themselves (tobacco, opioids, cocaine) to be able to morally maintain this position. It’s easy to say when you assume everyone is of sound mind and capable of self regulation, which is not the case. People have demons and mental health challenges that make them vulnerable. You’d need a model like Portugal, where they fund treatment programs and social services along side liber…

Who decides you're too vulnerable to make your own decisions.

At what percentage of the overall populace being classified as vulnerable do we start removing the decision from the whole population.

But yes, something similar to Portugal would be my preference. Health treatment provided by government, possibly a "Health Premium" tax paid on tobacco, drugs, alcohol, etc at point-of-sale to help cover costs. Different tax rates based on how "bad" for your health it is.

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

#180

Post by atlasunshrugged »

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote: post #109
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?

Afaik smokers and alcoholics are a blessing for most states. What is additionally spent on them due to healthcare costs is far less than the taxes they pay + the retirement payments they don't receive due to premature death. Funny clip from Yes, Prime Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWxukctTlsY I think choice is good, and taxing appropriately a good measure. Not sure about today's health and safety obsession…

Ha, I've seen that clip and really enjoyed it. I also am pretty sure I saw some research that says that's not true but I've just been searching the last few mins and can't find it. I have a bunch of files from when I was working in the field that I really need to sort through.

But yeah, I also am concerned about how safety driven we are for things and unwilling to take risks as a culture but that might be recency bias because I'm reading "Where is my flying car?" and they basically make the same point about the regulatory state stymieing innovation in the name of safety (often for absurd things like nuclear)

Post reply on HN