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

261–270 of 273 posts

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

#261

Post by User23 »

bsder wrote: post #246
User23 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I commend you for your integrity. However the exceptions are a rounding error in terms of market cap, because today's tech industry is all about creating addicts and profiting from their addiction directly or selling access to them to a third party. Sometimes both. It's not a coincidence that we're one of only two industries that refers to customers as users.

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

#262

Post by austincheney »

dragonwriter wrote: post #259
austincheney wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a non sequitur. The data suggests, as mentioned in the press release, African Americans disproportionately favor menthol flavored cigarettes. Failing to ban such previously is unfortunate but not racist and certainly not blatantly racist unless there was intent to disproportionately harm African Americans. Prior intent was not mentioned in the press release.

> Failing to ban such previously is unfortunate but not racist No, it was very much racist. > and certainly not blatantly racist unless there was intent to disproportionately harm African Americans. Both that the exception would have disproportionate impact on African-Americans and that the overt logic of the flavor ban applied equally to menthol was well known when the flavor ban was adopted. Intent is the only reas…

I am trying to follow your logic, but its fast and loose. It sounds like you are saying the prior cigarette flavor bans occurred after the cited evidence about African Americans consuming menthol cigarettes more frequently than other Americans therefore menthol cigarettes were not banned intentionally as a weapon to harm African Americans. That is a lot of assumptions not based on anything plus a factual statement that is likely false about the timeline.

Coincidence is not racism. Inventing a story from imagined assumptions isn't helpful for people disadvantaged by actual racism.

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

#263

Post by kbelder »

throwawaysea wrote: post #212
catillac wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these things are okay in moderation and have some driving principle that weighs cost versus benefit. Same with cigarettes. Hugely harmful with a long tail of harmfulness and external effects on society with little or no gain. Seems like a good risk analysis to me in this case.

This ban also includes flavored cigars, which most users only smoke occasionally. But even so, why is society bothered with someone's individual choice to smoke a menthol cigarette away from others? I don't see the "external effects" you're alluding to, so it feels like the "long tail" is small in magnitude. If I have to take a guess, you might be thinking of healthcare costs and having to subsidize smokers. But if t…

Do I need to rush out and stock up on Swisher Sweets? (Cherry-flavored cigars.)

This is kind of a serious question. I haven't smoked one in twenty years, but now I have an intense craving.

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

#264

Post by ajkjk »

int_19h wrote: post #202
ajkjk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a really oversimplified idea of what freedom is. It's not a binary where you're free or you aren't. You're never _completely_ free, or you wouldn't be able to pulled over by cops, forced to file taxes, or whatever, anyway. Like, yeah, you could stick to the "absolute freedom all the time" principle and do nothing to make people healthier, but if you had just done it anyway life would be better for everyone…

The problem is that your definition of "slightly" might not agree with that of the majority - and then you end up being targeted for your lifestyle choices. As far as freedom not being a binary... true, but insofar as it's a function of social arrangements, it's possible to find (or at least strive to find) a global maximum where everybody is as free as possible.

That response comes up a lot: that a particular choice of what the government does won't be agreeable to everyone. But like, so what? That's abstractly the point of democracy. It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. There are correction mechanisms also but it's just approximate, it's not supposed to appease everyone completely.

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

#265

Post by int_19h »

ajkjk wrote: post #264
int_19h wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that your definition of "slightly" might not agree with that of the majority - and then you end up being targeted for your lifestyle choices. As far as freedom not being a binary... true, but insofar as it's a function of social arrangements, it's possible to find (or at least strive to find) a global maximum where everybody is as free as possible.

That response comes up a lot: that a particular choice of what the government does won't be agreeable to everyone. But like, so what? That's abstractly the point of democracy. It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. There are correction mechanisms also but it's just approximate, it's not supposed to appease everyone completely.

> It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like.

Quite a few people would disagree. There's that whole consent of the governed thing, for example - and 50%+1 is certainly not it.

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

#266

Post by int_19h »

jolux wrote: post #200
int_19h wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have already banned alcohol in US a long time ago. That didn't last long, for very good reasons.

>That didn't last long, for very good reasons. It was, and still would be extremely unpopular. The public health reason is as strong as it's ever been.

The Prohibition wasn't extremely unpopular back when it was passed. Indeed, it was passed due to heavy pressure from the progressive public at the time, with grassroots campaigning advocating for such measures on all levels of government.

It became extremely unpopular when it became law, and people found out what this actually means - a large black market for organized crime to cultivate, and heavy-handed enforcement with plenty of "collateral damage".

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

#267

Post by bsder »

User23 wrote: post #261
bsder wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I commend you for your integrity. However the exceptions are a rounding error in terms of market cap, because today's tech industry is all about creating addicts and profiting from their addiction directly or selling access to them to a third party. Sometimes both. It's not a coincidence that we're one of only two industries that refers to customers as users.

While its probably hard to disagree about market cap, there are a lot of people writing software that backs your laptop/desktop, runs your bank, plans logistics delivery routes, runs medical equipment, etc.

There is a lot of software out there that isn't dedicated to triggering human dopamine receptors. You don't hear a lot about it as it's just part of the job.

And I didn't choose to have integrity--it's just that nobody ever offered me enough money to compromise it. :)

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

#268

Post by jolux »

int_19h wrote: post #266
jolux wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That didn't last long, for very good reasons. It was, and still would be extremely unpopular. The public health reason is as strong as it's ever been.

The Prohibition wasn't extremely unpopular back when it was passed. Indeed, it was passed due to heavy pressure from the progressive public at the time, with grassroots campaigning advocating for such measures on all levels of government. It became extremely unpopular when it became law, and people found out what this actually means - a large black market for organized crime to cultivate, and heavy-handed enforcement…

>The Prohibition wasn't extremely unpopular back when it was passed. Indeed, it was passed due to heavy pressure from the progressive public at the time, with grassroots campaigning advocating for such measures on all levels of government.

There's no evidence it ever had majority support, though: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-mis...

The campaign was effective at getting an unpopular law passed. I think that's how we should read prohibition.

Besides which, we don't have to go all the way to prohibition to make a dent here. A pigouvian tax would be good enough to start with, and maybe better education on the effects of alcohol.

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

#269

Post by ajkjk »

int_19h wrote: post #265
ajkjk wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That response comes up a lot: that a particular choice of what the government does won't be agreeable to everyone. But like, so what? That's abstractly the point of democracy. It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. There are correction mechanisms also but it's just approximate, it's not supposed to appease everyone completely.

> It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. Quite a few people would disagree. There's that whole consent of the governed thing, for example - and 50%+1 is certainly not it.

High-level you would like the government to mostly do things that the citizens mostly like. Then the citizens will mostly consent to have a government that mostly leaves them free. But it's all approximate. It doesn't extrapolate to always doing things that all citizens like. That doesn't work at all, for obvious reasons like the government being licensed to tax or imprison people.

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

#270

Post by spacemanmatt »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #225
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.

Smokers save Governments money on healthcare, because they die earlier. "According to the research, a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime, a smoker just £165,000 and an obese person £187,000." https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-... . By this logic, there should be no tax (or indeed a subsidy) on cigarettes.

Sounds like someone just finished reading a bunch of Ayn Rand novels.
Post reply on HN