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

81–90 of 273 posts

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

#81

Post by RacfeelBudkind »

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?

> 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.[1]

> The tobacco industry spends billions of dollars each year on marketing cigarettes.[2]

> Each day, about 1,600 youth try their first cigarette.[2]

> In 2015, nearly 7 in 10 (68.0%) adult cigarette smokers wanted to stop smoking.[1]

> In 2018, more than half (55.1%) adult cigarette smokers had made a quit attempt in the past year.[1]

> In 2018, more than [only] 7 out of every 100 (7.5%) people who tried to quit succeeded.[1]

Smoking legislation isn't about micromanaging the lives of people who fully understand the risk choose to smoke anyway. It's about preventing cigarette manufacturers from preying on those who don't fully understand the risk or didn't when they started, but are now addicted.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/inde...

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

#82

Post by jolux »

nprz wrote: post #72
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?

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.

Tobacco is vastly more harmful than marijuana. I don't necessarily agree with the justification but I don't think these positions are inconsistent.

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

#83

Post by throwawaysea »

In general I am not a fan of the government banning things. People should be allowed the freedom to make individual choices and live their life unencumbered. Living in a state where everything is controlled, allowed, or disallowed by governments and corporations imposing their own morality and values is not living freely. Why is it anyone's business if someone smokes a flavored cigar? It makes even less sense when you consider that this government is allowing a free flow of drugs and criminals through an open southern border, including substances that are much more dangerous like meth or fentanyl.

Lastly, I am just completely frustrated and exhausted by the continual hammering of "equity" and "justice" word salads used in every single press release coming out of this administration and the progressive/activist machine more broadly. Does anyone take sentences like this seriously:

> [...] 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 [...]

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

#84

Post by filoleg »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #58
whatshisface wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Agreed with your premise in full.

Increasing the price isn't necessarily about making it inaccessible to people so they stop smoking (though it is a minor part of it that is a nice side-effect), 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.

If people don't stop smoking, then might as well make sure they cover the extra cost they add to the healthcare system. Seems pretty fair.

To be clear, this statement I made has nothing to with my views on the specific menthol ban in question, as I am still not sure how I feel about it. I was just discussing the hypothetical non-existent strategy of just more taxing on tobacco products instead of outright banning them.

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

#85

Post by Enginerrrd »

ketzo wrote: post #29
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?

Smoking is really, really, really bad for you. It’s much worse, and much harder to stop, the earlier you start. Banning flavors 1) stops some overall consumption 2) especially stops youth consumption. Lifetime healthcare costs for the negative externalities of a pack-a-day smoker can reach into seven figures. And most people, frankly, don’t pay that themselves. It’s a tremendous burden on our healthcare system. We ba…

>We ban lead paint, even though it’s super cheap and makes for vibrant colors. I honestly don’t see how this is any different.

That's totally different. Lead paint leads to a ton of environmental exposure to unwitting people. Smokers by contrast have made a choice to smoke.

Do you want them to ban bacon and soda too? Where's the line? Should we ban motorcycles because they're more dangerous than cars? What about recreational diving, skydiving and recreational pilots? Backyard swimming pools are incredibly dangerous statistically, shall we ban them too?

People have an inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government can ban smokers from smoking in a way that exposes you, but what right do they have to say you aren't allowed to do something dangerous if you so choose to do it?

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

#86

Post by oytis »

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…

Did anyone make a calculation on that? I mean smokers are obviously less healthy, but their lifespan is also shorter.

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

#87

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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 feel it would be so much easier for me to quit if I wasn't tempted by its availability at every corner store

Canadian bans on packaging and promotion are one solution. Another is to mandate tobacco products, or certain tobacco products, be mail ordered.

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

#89

Post by throwawayboise »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #62
LargeWu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

How are menthol cigarettes more harmful than regular ones? The menthol just makes it easier to smoke more. Is that the crux of your argument? I find the “company X is targeting [arbitrary subcategory]” argument to be totally asinine btw. Is Krispy Kreme targeting fat people by offering free donuts for people that get COVID-19 vaccines? Lastly there is nothing more patronizing than telling a black person that you’re p…

> Is Krispy Kreme targeting fat people by offering free donuts for people that get COVID-19 vaccines?

LOL are they really doing that? That's funny considering that obesity and diabetes are both risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

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

#90

Post by atlasunshrugged »

techrat wrote: post #64
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.

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?

I mean things probably will go that way as tracking of individual behaviors gets easier right? For example, I believe some healthcare providers will give free fitbits to users (I think the State of Nevada does) to get them to exercise more, so not a direct fee but they are incentivizing a certain behavior. Then you've got all the car insurers now that are looking at more details of your driving above and beyond the standard 1) how old are you 2) have you been in any accidents
Post reply on HN