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

51–60 of 273 posts

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

#51

Post by jakeva »

nanidin wrote: post #31
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?

It’s a public health issue on the same order of magnitude as COVID-19, but happening every year: “Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.” [0] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...

But it's not. Smoking isn't contagious.

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

#52

Post by ketzo »

LargeWu wrote: post #27
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 think a more accurate way of framing it is "Menthols have been targeted specifically to black people, and also, they're even more harmful than regular cigarettes". It's definitely not "let's take this away because black people like it".

That’s actually a solid point. There’s extra responsibility to prevent harm to specific groups when the harm has been targeted at them specifically.

And yeah, I know that’s not actually the message. But as I read it, “banning menthols because they disproportionately harm underrepresented groups” is not so semantically different from the other version.

I mostly think it’s an area where we should all have our eyes peeled, basically. Like I said, I’m fully in agreement with this decision. Just hits my “maybe weird?” radar.

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

#53

Post by Scoundreller »

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…

Higher prices do reduce alcohol consumption.

The problem is for the people it doesn’t reduce consumption of. Plenty of people will happily spend less on their children or education or safer products or whatever to continue their dependence instead.

There are solutions to these issues, but governments love to say “see, we have scientific proof that this tax is good for you”.

Similarly, a common anti-diarrheal (loperamide) is believed to help reduce opiate withdrawals if you eat a massive number of tablets (like 50-100). It doesn’t. But the FDA still “asked” manufacturers to only sell in smaller packs. Now that my family has gone through their bottle of 200 after several years, it costs me 5x more than last time. Meanwhile, anyone in opiate withdrawal will do anything to ward off those withdrawals. Logic will go out the window. Cost is irrelevant and anything will be done to get the funds/materials required.

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

#54

Post by pdq »

teruakohatu wrote: post #20

According to Wikipedia taxes make up 42.5% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the US. In New Zealand it is as best I can work it out, around 72% (including both excise tax and sale tax). One cigarette costs US$0.96 in New Zealand. Menthol is still allowed. This, along with bans on smoking inside public buildings including restaurants and bars, ban on advertising (they can't even be displayed in stores), and marke…

Menthol, not methanol. I’m sure the latter is banned.

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

#55

Post by endisneigh »

Alupis wrote: post #39
endisneigh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn’t just to tax, but to use the funds to create things that are significantly cheaper and reverse the effect. Taxing obviously affects the demand and cost of consumption but that money should go somewhere useful, ideally not into the ether that is government spending.

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.

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

#56

Post by lainga »

nanidin wrote: post #31
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?

It’s a public health issue on the same order of magnitude as COVID-19, but happening every year: “Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.” [0] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...

Is there an active or other ingredient in tobacco that makes its smoke more harmful than cannabis? Or is it the method of ingestion?

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

#57

Post by toomuchtodo »

howeyc wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New Zealand has an age requirement for tobacco, and has also (edit: proposed) to ban sales of it entirely based on birth year (2004 and forward) to phase out its consumption. I’d say this doesn’t go far enough. We’ve known for over half a century the damage tobacco consumption does to a person’s body. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-ai...

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 liberal drug policy.

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

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

#58

Post by atlasunshrugged »

whatshisface wrote: post #37
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?

> Why not just dramatically increase the taxes so people can still choose to pay a high price if they want to? If you increased the taxes enough to change behavior, that would imply that people who wanted to smoke were made unable to. If all the people who want Menthols after your tax increase can still afford them, then it would not stop them, by definition. Consequently, vice taxes are always either ineffectual, or…

Yeah I mean if you increase prices 1000x it would have that effect but if you increase them closer to what a place like NZ or Aus does (I think like ~75%, it's been a while since I studied this stuff then the cost is offputting for many but it means that the societal costs aren't externalized onto nonsmokers in the form of additional healthcare burden and the like. There's lots of arguments about pigouvian taxes and whether they hurt the poor, but generally they are effective at stopping usage up to a point (as in there is strong correlation between an increase in tax and decrease in usage) and the benefits usually outweigh the costs even for the poor. Patricio Marquez from the World Bank has a bunch of great reports that break this down, often on a country by country basis. CTFK also has info but is a little paternalistic but I really like tobacconomics reports https://tobacconomics.org/

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

#59

Post by s17n »

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.

It probably wouldn't

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

#60

Post by GloriousKoji »

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…

The broader term is a pigovian tax and there's tons of (economic) studies on the effects of them. The problem with crazy high taxes is it also increases the incentive to circumvent them, legal or otherwise. One easy example off the top of my head is a person could stop buying them from a corner store and start directly importing them from outside the US.

According to the press release at least one study suggests it would lead to 923,000 smokers to quit, which is a definite health improvement.

Post reply on HN