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

181–190 of 273 posts

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

#181

Post by jolux »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #174
jolux wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine.

Sure but that's not really what's being discussed here right now, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that this has happened. From another perspective, governments are trying to do their best to protect their citizens from the malign interests of private entities who sell dangerous products. I agree that banning tobacco entirely would be too coercive, though.

Apparently Bhutan is the only country where tobacco is illegal. I understand your concerns with regards to prohibition but I think this is a slippery slope argument without a better example or a more compelling explanation.

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

#182

Post by nicoburns »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #167
nicoburns wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes sense is to socialise medicine, and then have the body responsible for running that: 1. Run public health awareness campaigns to make sure that people (especially children / young people) are aware of the health risks. You can do similar things around healthy eating. 2. Treat drug usage and addiction as medical rather than criminal issue (so the police might confiscate your weed if they catch you with it,…

Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare costs because it divorces the person creating the cost from bearing the results. This applies in basically every socialist system not just socialized medicine. It’s also worth mentioning that public health awareness campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to moralize more effectively. Case in point: saturated fats, pretending everyone is equally vul…

> Socialized medicine by definition increases healthcare costs because it divorces the person creating the cost from bearing the results

Then why are healthcare costs in the UK (socialised) and Europe (typically private, but highly regulated with a social option) dramatically lower than US (private) healthcare costs despite similar levels of care? Unless you have evidence that it increases costs, I would suggest that you viewpoint is just ideology, and you may wish to consider revising it.

> It’s also worth mentioning that public health awareness campaigns frequently stretch the science in the quest to moralize more effectively

They also often do a lot of good despite this. There is a very successful public health campaign promoting the eating of 5 fruits and vegetables a day. It's not quite accurate. The science suggested we should be eating 9. But it's lead to people eating a lot more fruit and veg than they would otherwise have done, which is a good thing all round.

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

#183

Post by rcoveson »

jedberg wrote: post #158
techrat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea that my own health is an external cost is crazy. How do you tax a free solo rock climber like Alex Honnold? A 1000% tax on chalk dust?

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

#184

Post by sebow »

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…

Let's jump straight into identity politics because certain extra stats(like all studies/decisions have) are given.

I'm assuming you know this, but just in case: projecting like this then complaining about "racial" anything has the exactly opposite effect you'd want.

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

#185

Post by glitcher »

I feel like adults are giving away their liberties bit by bit in the name of "protecting the children". I am sympathetic to the issue of kids getting addicted to smoking/vaping, but to ban any and all flavors seems like a horrible idea.

A drinker can go any liquor store and buy fruit flavored vodka. A recreational cannabis smoker can go to a local dispensary and buy fruit flavored weed - hell, even gummy bears!

As an adult I want these choices available and it doesn't make any sense to me that only some adult vices aren't allowed to have flavors while all the rest of them do.

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

#186

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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…

It's basically the opposite of what's going on, but simultaneously looks really similar. The article says:

> ...address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ+ individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products

So yes, one motivation for an action like this is that an enemy against those groups wants to deprive them of something that they use more than others.

Another motivation for the exact same action is that an ally aligned with those groups wants to remove something that harms them more than others.

Unfortunately, intent is hard to measure, and the behavior is very similar. I think one of the key differentiators is whether that removal extends only to the class being 'protected' or whether it extends to everyone. To extend your hypothetical example, if people without a high school diploma were prevented from purchasing lottery tickets, and those with college degrees (like the people passing the legislation and their peers) were allowed to buy them at a discount rate, that would indicate malicious intent and discrimination against those who are less educated. On the other hand, if you take away lotto tickets from everyone, including depriving yourself of the ability to buy them, because they're universally bad and also because they cause an unusually high degree of harm to those with less education, that looks more like benevolent motivation. Of course, if you didn't buy them in the first place then your sacrifice doesn't mean as much...

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

#187

Post by ksherlock »

the_lonely_road wrote: post #170
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 don’t buy into the ban having racist roots but I am concerned about the result of the ban increasing race problems. There was a famous case in the past few years of a big black guy being killed during a police interaction and the underlying reason for the interaction was that he was selling loose cigarettes on the street. Prohibition and the failed drug war have shown us that making something illegal won’t stop dem…

Eric Garner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner

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

#188

Post by ketzo »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #186
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…

It's basically the opposite of what's going on, but simultaneously looks really similar. The article says: > ...address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ+ individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products So yes, one motivation for an action like this is that an enemy against those groups wants to deprive them of something that they use…

> I think one of the key differentiators is whether that removal extends only to the class being 'protected' or whether it extends to everyone.

Very, very good point. It's not the only measure, I think, but it's certainly one of the big ones.

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

#189

Post by Alupis »

endisneigh wrote: post #55
Alupis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your plan falls apart when it comes to the "vices" and "Sin Taxes", in my opinion. You won't prevent people from indulging in their choice of "vice" or "sin", you'll just make those people more poor than before. People who smoke and are addicted won't suddenly substitute smoking with chewing bubble gum or eating salads simply because those are cheaper options...

It’s not about those specific people, it’s about the aggregate. They probably won’t chew gum, but you can probably help other poor people in the same community. Compared to what- banning it which creates some level of a black market and more waste by policing what was previously a legal activity. Not to mention fining or otherwise enforcing the new law also makes those poor people even poorer and removes choice.

Or you could just not try to Social Engineer society...

It rarely works anyway, and often leads to unintended consequences.

Educate people about the choices and why it might be bad for them to choose one way over the other - then hands off, let the now-educated adults make their own decisions.

We can look at smoking as a good example of this. Decades of hard-core educational efforts about the negative effects have inarguably led to a massive reduction in smoking. Has it eliminated it entirely? No... but it certainly has reduced it to benign levels when compared to historical smoking.

When someone considers trying cigarettes for the first time, do they consider the costs of an addiction/habit - or do they consider the effects on their own health? The massive taxes on a pack of cigarettes has little-to-zero impact on the choice to smoke the first one...

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

#190

Post by Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #180
Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bia…

It's really difficult to come up with good statistics, because of the number of things one can factor in. Tobacco industry in-country producing, or it's imported for example (total cost of cigarette smoking)? How many jobs directly, how many secondary (marketing, product chain, the news stand which sells them). How to factor in second-hand smoking exactly? Are smokers more likely to consume other drugs, if so, why? Because they have a tendency to try, or smoking causes them to try? How do you factor in that? How do you even "measure" that?

With alcohol: how to factor in violence due to alcohol? How much less police incidents Friday / Saturday evening due to less alcohol? But what about people maybe going out less than before, or spending less money when doing so (will they pay the same prize for drinks if there's no alcohol involved)? What about sports betting and gambling industry (where it's legal)? How will it affect illegal drug use (we've been through that, but it's been long enough for people to say "well, it was different than").

Even the death statistic is tough to do. "Pre-mature death due to smoking", maybe the person also was overweight and had diabetes, how do you estimate how long this person would have lived, if they didn't smoke?

In every step of the way is the possibility for variance. Social sciences, from sociology, to psychology, to health, is such a minefield. Medicine of course is half and half. You can do a lot of stuff on the level of biology, chemistry, hard science in a lab, but health benefits/damages are "observed" in practice (observational studies). And the number of problems there are just ... huge.

I could go on and on and on...

Post reply on HN