the FDA is considering a ban on menthol cigarette sales

They've already banned menthol in California and it did nothing. Alternatives are already being marketed and sold and some of the better ones recreate the exact same effect but cost $1.20 more per pack at the low end. To put it simply, this is dumb as fuck.

The point is to make cigarettes as expensive and unappealing as possible.
- That's not in anyone's own interests. Smokers have to pay more, tobacco industry gets more money. Literally a lose-lose. Dumb. As. Fuck.

"According to the American Lung Association, the use of menthol cigarettes is highest among Black, brown and LGBTQ+ communities. Medical groups like the American Lung Association have long advocated for menthol cigarettes to be banned because they can make it easier to start smoking and disproportionately affect minority communities."

Gonna save the minorities from the opression of racism and homophobia by specifically targeting them with a ban.

I've never really understood references to "the left eating itself" until I hit that paragraph. The absolute irony of the anti racist/homophobe sentiment being so overtly racist/homophobic kinda made the light bulb come on.

This adverse thing is adverse, so in order to reduce adversity among minorities, we'll target the specific option they tend towards... to reduce discrimination against them, by discriminating their specific choice. Discriminating against them... to reduce discrimination...

And then you publish that shit? That's kinda fucked IMHO.

- It's my body; I get to decide what goes in it. Poison or not. This isn't a win at all.
- Nah, this ban accomplishes absolutely nothing except producing more expensive alternatives that do the exact same thing.
  I'm glad you survived your battle, but this ban would only serve to disproportionately affect the poor.
- How do menthols make it easier to get cancer than regular smokes? Genuinely asking btw
It's racist to ban menthols? "The left eating itself"? Go touch grass.
- It's racist to specifically target a type favored by minorities if your intent is to target minorities, and the stated intent is specifically to target minorities with a ban... ironically, to protect them from being discriminated against by their chosen type of cigarettes.
  They published that... they very publicly are saying that they're going to protect these minorities by directly targeting them with a ban. It's not me saying it's a racist/homophobic ban, it's the published premise itself. The entire basis of the ban is published as being to keep cigarettes from affecting blacks, browns, and LGBTQ+ people by eliminating their preferred type.
  How on earth are there people who don't understand this? Are you so tied to the politics that you cannot or will not see this objectively? It's blatant.
- Okay, I'm touching grass. Now what? It's not doing anything and is boring.
what a wanker take on it, cigarettes should be banned period, they do nothing good for anyoneand are an absolute blight for public health. Any step in making cigarettes worse for accessibility, as marginal as it is, is a step in the right the right direction. People who smoked in France had the same take when they upped the cigarette prices "ooooh it won't stop the poor people smoking blah blah" "they're just doing it for the money they don't care about poor people it will just hurt the common man more". Welll cookie it turns out that 10€ has forced a lot of people to stop and greatly reduced young people who start smoking in the first place. Granted now people have shifted to vaping but compared to cigarettes they're heaven. You can't even compare vaping to smoking.
- So it's totally fine to target minorities with a ban if it means forward progress in disincentivising tobacco use? I disagree on the ends justifying the means in this case.
  No arguments at all on the merits of reducing tobacco use, just an objection to throwing minorities under the bus in pursuit of it. I would not actually object to taxation as a means. I wouldn't object to an outright ban even. My objection is to the specificity to minorities... that's not cricket...
- I'd agree with you if it was a blanket ban on cigarettes, but it isn't. It's targeted.

Fuck you.
I spent half my life legally smoking tobacco and illegally smoking weed.
I moved a quarter of a country away for the mental health of legally smoking tobacco and legally smoking weed.
I WILL NOT be dragged back into a life where one of my vices give me crippling fear of imprisonment.
Get off your fucking high horse. Mind your own fucking business. Stop asserting your will over others. Live your own fucking life. Let me live my fucking life.
Seriously.
Stop.
Just stop.
Prohibition is horse shit.
Stop supporting prohibition.
- I'm glad I live in a country with universal healthcare. Your point is made completely erroneous by the fact that everyone's taxes are paying for your cancer treatment. This "fuck you i'll do what i want" mentality is literally antisocial conservative garbage.
Or, how about we let people put whatever they want into their own body?
- Normally I'd agree, but cigarettes in particular are a product that is designed to be as addictive as possible with a laundry list of negative health impacts and virtually zero positive ones. Combine that with the fact that you aren't just putting it in your body but the body of anyone within breathing distance of you, there's a strong case to be made for banning them outright.
  Put it another way, if cigarettes are legal then marijuana, LSD, MDMA, and a whole host of other drugs should be legal too.
- Because of the children, won’t someone think of the children?!
- Tell that to all the smokers trying to quit who wish their younger self had not started in the first place.
- Vape for the same effect. I don't want to choke on what you're putting in your body.
Banning drugs or alcohol has never worked. The demand will still be there. People will turn to the black market instead if it gets banned.
- Yeah, which is why illegal drugs have more users than legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco). Except they don't.
- There is a whole arc in the Battlestar Galactica reboot series that masterfully illustrates this topic.
Ok, I'll bite. Why is banning only menthols racist?
- Because African American smokers tend to favor menthol over other types of cigarettes.
  “In the 1950s, less than 10% of Black smokers used menthol cigarettes. Today, after decades of tobacco industry targeting, that number is 85%. Menthol cigarettes continue to be heavily advertised, widely available and priced cheaper in Black communities."
  https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what-we-do/industry-watch/menthol-report
- Black people tend to primarily smoke menthol, disproportionate to other races. I'm too lazy to link, but you can Google it and find studies pretty easily.
It aint racist my guy. The chemical processes involved in menthol cigarettes increase the carcinogenic properties of the cig.
Yes, no shit cigs are bad. Menthol cigs are the worst offenders.
- https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42237299
  Edit: lol stay mad
This apparently is an objectionable point to bring up... not sure if your downvotes are the "all or nothing" aspect, or the spotlighting of the blatant racist aspect, but it seems people don't want to see this at face value :/
I'm with you though. The selective targeting is wrong. Equal ban or no ban is the right position to take IMHO.
- I down voted it because I don't think the government should ban substances. Not cigarettes, not alcohol, not marijuana, not psychedelics, and probably not a bunch of other drugs too. The government's job is not to play mommy and daddy for a nation of adults. Our citizens are entirely too eager to strip away their own liberty these days.