I also take issue with the idea that "a group of self-appointed leaders from a marginalized community asked for this regulation, so it is therefore good."
The conclusion isn't "so it is therefore good;" the conclusion is "so maybe we should consider what they have to say." Maybe this is some ploy to harm black people, but that at least becomes less likely if a black advocacy group is (in part) behind it.
Even with advocacy from Black health experts, I disagree with the logic of a ban on menthol cigarettes though.
I don't think it's a ploy to harm anyone, I think it's just going to make people's lives suck a little more once they can't get menthol cigarettes or flavored blunt wraps.
I agree with all of that. This isn't even a good treatment of the symptoms, much less a treatment of any root causes.
I do think noting who's behind this is still important, though, precisely because it gets to the question of whether there's an intent to harm people or whether it's just a bad policy choice.
I also take issue with the idea that "a group of self-appointed leaders from a marginalized community asked for this regulation, so it is therefore good."
The conclusion isn't "so it is therefore good;" the conclusion is "so maybe we should consider what they have to say." Maybe this is some ploy to harm black people, but that at least becomes less likely if a black advocacy group is (in part) behind it.
Even with advocacy from Black health experts, I disagree with the logic of a ban on menthol cigarettes though.
I don't think it's a ploy to harm anyone, I think it's just going to make people's lives suck a little more once they can't get menthol cigarettes or flavored blunt wraps.
I agree with all of that. This isn't even a good treatment of the symptoms, much less a treatment of any root causes.
I do think noting who's behind this is still important, though, precisely because it gets to the question of whether there's an intent to harm people or whether it's just a bad policy choice.