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

241–250 of 273 posts

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

#241

Post by Clubber »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #149
whatshisface wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is to make sure that the additional burden placed on the healthcare system by those people is balanced out by taxes paid in form of increased prices on tobacco products. That only makes sense in places where the taxes go to healthcare organizations. In the American system, that doesn't happen - there's no way that a city will hand the proceeds of its tobacco taxes to insurance companies.

Yeah, the point isn't to compensate insurers - they for sure get theirs and charge smokers more. It's to compensate healthcare systems and governments who foot the bill for 1) productivity decreases from smoking in the form of more sick days, more breaks, etc. and 2) people who don't have insurance and get cancer and are treated at the taxpayers expense

It's a cash grab, make no mistake about it. They can justify it all they want, but they're fooling you.

Tobacco companies already pay states a bunch of money from their 1998 settlement.

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

It's over $200 billion and growing. They're more than compensated.

Cigarettes and tobacco products are already heavily taxed for the user. Both the federal government and the state government makes a lot of money off people's addiction, and it's an addiction they can't break (obviously).

https://igentax.com/cigarette-tax-state/

Time to leave smokers alone. Many if not most of them got hooked as kids and as a society we just keep punishing them for their "moral failure."

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

#242

Post by hackinthebochs »

Gatsky wrote: post #221
fitzie wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Garner was killed because of the policies that created the a huge black market for cigarettes in NYC. the absurdity is they are banning flavor which isn't the harmful element. at the same time they are legalizing marijuana including edibles across this country. in a free country you have to allow people the liberty to make poor choices. putting out health information and reasonable restrictions is as far as the…

Two parts to this: - You are highlighting the negative consequences of a ban. There are of course negative consequences to a ban, the black market issue is far from the most important one. But as inidicated in the press release, smoking is a huge health problem causing untold suffering, loss of income, loss of productivity, unnecessary healthcare costs etc etc. These pros and cons of a ban need to be compared in a sa…

>the basic answer is because tobacco causes a huge burden of problems, and there are only very small upsides to smoking for an individual

Doubtful. The real answer is that public opinion on smoking has turned so strongly against it that these bans won't create enough vocal opposition. The anti-vice authoritarians only stop here because they would be eviscerated if they tried to ban something like alcohol. But we should be careful about emboldening the moral busybodies with national victories.

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

#243

Post by bustin »

Gatsky wrote: post #192
bustin wrote: post #151

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 full…

They are banning sale, not use. It seems totally reasonable to say we don’t want anyone to profit from selling highly addictive health damaging products. This is ok. Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.” The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a t…

>Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.”

Yes this is my argument.

>The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a terrible idea, and impossible to implement.

We talked past each other here.

I did not mean that we should remove an individual's access to healthcare due to their habits.

My intent is that if we're OK with spreading out the cost of health care to every citizen, we must also be OK with the fact that some people will cost more due to their habits. If we feel the need to dictate which habits are proper in order to make the costs more lean, maybe we should reconsider spreading out the costs at all, and hold off on socializing medicine.

Socializing the cost of medicine is not a bad idea, but telling people which habits are proper in order to make the costs more lean is a dangerous idea with no limiting principle.

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

#244

Post by awillen »

rcoveson wrote: post #183
jedberg wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This actually reminds me of https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681877909/sailboat-from-u-s-t...

I think that in situations like that, you ought to cover the cost of a potential rescue up front, either by paying for an insurance policy or putting down a deposit. People search until your deposit/insurance runs out, then they stop. If you don't survive, that's on you. There's just absolutely no reason that anyone's tax dollars should be spent to help someone who performs a totally needless and incredibly dangerous activity of their own volition.

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

#245

Post by ImprovedSilence »

ralusek wrote: post #38
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…

Harm reduction? Why not ban alcohol? Why not cap cars at 55mph? People have lost money in the stock market, so I assume you'd like that banned as well. What is your limiting principle?

Excatly. I get the feeling the same group of people in favor of this ban is heavily overlapping with the large population segment that wants legal marijuana? Like, its gotta be all or nothing here, you want this stuff legal, or not? Otherwise your gonna get contraband, perverse incentives, and very likely excessively harsh punishment on petty drug crimes....

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

#246

Post by bsder »

User23 wrote: post #239
bsder wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flavors aren't effective at hooking young people, nicotine is. Wrong. Flavors are simply really effective at hooking everybody . I watched this with a friend of mine who absolutely thought the same way as you. We got him a couple different flavored ones to try--all non-nicotine. His reaction: "Alright, you win. You have to physically take the strawberry ones away as I will absolutely drain them all." The flavors al…

Given that the entire modern tech business is addiction as a service, I don't think we have any room for moral grandstanding. Remember when Internet addiction was a big concern?

> Given that the entire modern tech business is addiction as a service

That is grossly unfair to the many of us who have absolutely nothing to do with the latest Social-Garbage-As-A-Service fads.

Just because VCs will only fund Internet Junk Food does not mean that all software that exists does that.

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

#247

Post by austincheney »

sangnoir wrote: post #231
austincheney wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the press release does specifically target black people: > One studyExternal Link Disclaimer suggests that banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S. would lead an additional 923,000 smokers to quit, including 230,000 African Americans in the first 13 to 17 months after a ban goes into effect. An earlier studyExternal Link Disclaimer projected that about 633,000 deaths would be averted, including about 237,000 deaths…

> Then they go on to rationalize those positions about African Americans because that progress hasn’t been experienced by everyone equally I don't see any rationalizations - here are the basic facts: 1. Menthol is the last flavor that's available for sale 2. Black people are extremely over-represented among smokers of menthol cigarettes. Stating that banning of other flavors (except Menthol!) didn't have a proportion…

I am not agreeing or opposing.

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

#248

Post by bustin »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #242
Gatsky wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two parts to this: - You are highlighting the negative consequences of a ban. There are of course negative consequences to a ban, the black market issue is far from the most important one. But as inidicated in the press release, smoking is a huge health problem causing untold suffering, loss of income, loss of productivity, unnecessary healthcare costs etc etc. These pros and cons of a ban need to be compared in a sa…

>the basic answer is because tobacco causes a huge burden of problems, and there are only very small upsides to smoking for an individual Doubtful. The real answer is that public opinion on smoking has turned so strongly against it that these bans won't create enough vocal opposition. The anti-vice authoritarians only stop here because they would be eviscerated if they tried to ban something like alcohol. But we shou…

>The anti-vice authoritarians only stop here because they would be eviscerated if they tried to ban something like alcohol. But we should be careful about emboldening the moral busybodies with national victories.

Bingo. The state is dictating virtuousness for our own good.

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

#249

Post by Gatsky »

bustin wrote: post #243
Gatsky wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are banning sale, not use. It seems totally reasonable to say we don’t want anyone to profit from selling highly addictive health damaging products. This is ok. Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.” The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a t…

>Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.” Yes this is my argument. >The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a terrible idea, and impossible to implement. We talked past each other here. I did not mean that we should remove an individual's access to h…

> Yes this is my argument

I don't find this very convincing, considering the large downsides for the individual and community. I work in healthcare, so perhaps I have a different perspective to you.

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

#250

Post by Dracophoenix »

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…

>>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...

This point raises a third issue: should one at all submit to the whims of the crab bucket , the benevolence of its motives notwithstanding?

Post reply on HN