Title.
they apparently banned them here recently "to deter young people from smoking" lol
when i was a kid i was the only one i knew who smoked menthols under the age of like 40
why are you surprised that Jim Crow Biden is a racist drug warrior lol
Defending cigarette companies' ability to target black people is not a woke take. Black people don't prefer menthol cigarettes because it is inherently part of black identity. Black people mostly smoke menthol cigarettes because cigarette companies spent decades manipulating black people to smoke menthol cigarettes through targeted advertisements, free cigarettes to children, and co-opting social movements.
Thinking that having a commodity targeted towards you is some kind of advantage or freedom is such a lib-brain thought. Freedom is not the ability to choose between products. You are not the commodities that you consume. You are doing reification. The menthol cigarette ban is not intended to harm black people. It does not take away their ability to smoke cigarettes. The menthol cigarette ban is intended to reduce the number of ways that exploitative cigarette companies target oppressed groups in society.
Here's a clip from Adam Curtis's Century of the self where he describes how cigarette companies in 1929 co-opted feminist movements to manipulate women into smoking cigarettes.
Canada banned menthol, and it only led to me switching what i smoked. Smoking is smoking. If you have an addiction, a ban is just another roadblock you'll have to deal with.
I think the measure is more targeted at preventing people from starting smoking. The menthol apparently alters how you process nicotine, and studies have shown menthol cigarettes to be more addictive by themselves, even ignoring the whole marketing aspect.
Guess it doesn't really change anything but I dont care either way, people who smoke are just generally dickheads to me cause even residual smoke smell on clothing can send me into a migraine incredibly fast.
Be warned, smoking a single cigarette now and then is how most people start getting addicted.
The regulation is apparently for manufacture, sale, and importation. Studies have shown that menthol cigarettes are more addictive, so this would almost certainly help even if we just assumed that everyone who would have smoked their first menthol cigarette smokes a regular one instead. The article I first heard about this (the one posted yesterday or so) on claimed that banning menthol cigarettes in 2010 would have, by 2020, prevented 2.3 million people from starting to smoke and would have prevented 17,000 premature deaths. Not sure how the numbers work out that way (2.3 million less smokers out of about 30 million current smokers is a lot, 17,000 less deaths over a 10 year period out of ~5 million smoking-related deaths is not).
I agree that the ban should just be for manufacture and importation. But the ban itself is likely to have its intended effects, given the available evidence.
This thread is filled with reactionary thought. Opposing policy changes, and upholding the status quo, based on your own personal anecdotes is reactionary thought. You are not looking at the issue through a leftist framework. "Banning menthol cigarettes just made me switch to non-menthol cigarettes, so the ban of menthol cigarettes is useless" is an identical thought process to "I already get raises and benefits at my job, so unions are useless". It is a thought process that is premised on ignorance.
Thinking that having a commodity targeted towards you is some kind of advantage or freedom is such a lib-brain thought. Freedom is not the ability to choose between products. You are not the commodities that you consume. You are doing reification. The menthol cigarette ban is not intended to harm specific people. It does not take away their ability to smoke cigarettes. The menthol cigarette ban is intended to reduce the number of ways that exploitative cigarette companies target oppressed groups in society.
Here's a clip from Adam Curtis's Century of the self where he describes how cigarette companies in 1929 co-opted feminist movements to manipulate women into smoking cigarettes.
Couldn’t you also argue that banning menthols is reactionary? Instead of attacking the root of the problem, it’s a half assed measure that disproportionately effects POC. The same companies that make menthol cigarettes make full flavor and lite cigarettes too.
It is a half measure, yes, but a half measure in this case is better than no measure. It may disproportionately affect POC, but in a good way. Reducing the number of people that are targeted by cigarette companies is a good thing. The FDA cigarette ban was a response to a lawsuit by a black advocacy group and a few medical associations.
The menthol cigarette ban not only targets black people, it was advocated by black people. You can read the AATCLC's website.
On full flavor and light cigarettes, full flavor just means regular cigarette, not that it is flavored, and light cigarette means that it has holes in the filter. The only difference between the full flavor cigarette and the light cigarette is the holes in the filter that let in more air. You can put your fingers over the air holes on the light cigarette and you have created a full flavor cigarette. Alternatively you could just poke holes in the full flavor cigarette to make a light cigarette.
They tried banning flavored cigarettes before, and promptly got told off for racism as soon as the media realized that flavored included menthols. What happened?
