Eighty national public health groups, including the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Preventative Medicine, placed a full-page ad in Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post in support of a federal ban on menthol in cigarettes and all flavored cigars.
“The answer is clear,” the full-page ad says. “Saving lives starts by ending the sale of menthol cigarettes and all flavored cigars.
“Smoking kills nearly half a million people in the United States each year, and these addictive, deadly products are a big part of the problem. The FDA and White House have our full support to release lifesaving rules prohibiting menthol cigarettes and all flavored cigars.”
I have maybe a cigar a month. Sometimes, a nice dipped cigar is enjoyable. It’d be a shame to just outright ban them.
I sort of feel like this is the equivalent of banning white claws or even everything other than IPAs. During the summer I have a cigar most days. Once the temps drop below 60, I’m done with tobacco for six months or so. I don’t smoke flavored cigars, but I don’t like it for those who do.
Welcome to the ‘all drugs are bad unless I do them’ mentality.
Yeah, it’s unfortunate. I understand it. The flavours do make smoking more enticing to young people, who might not limit themselves to one cigar a month like you do. But it does suck to ban something outright just because some people will misuse it. Mind you, nicotine is addictive, which is a pretty critical facet to this (though I don’t think anyone starts smoking without knowing this risk).
I dislike smoking in general and do want things that are good for society as a whole. But the logic of banning stuff like this seems similar to, say, banning fast food because some people will overeat (or more extreme, having calorie rationing so that people can’t overeat on any kind of food). It’s admittedly always a balancing act for how much danger is acceptable before we just ban it for everyone. Some bans using this logic are very reasonable, some aren’t, and many are extremely debatable.
I think I currently prefer the sin tax approach, especially since that best accomodates occasional usage. A hefty tax makes the dangerous thing less accessible to impressionable young people and helps pay for the social cost (though IIRC, smokers actually cost society less because they die younger, reducing the many medical costs of old age). Price influences people’s choices, too. If healthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food, that encourages buying healthy stuff. But even sin taxes are imperfect, especially in a vacuum. They can make the cost of living higher for a vulnerable population. They need to be planned carefully.
Tobacco is fucking horrible, but Menthol and other flavorings make it so much worse. They increase the likelihood of addiction massively.
And is always the case in public health, you don’t put in rules to cater to the edge cases, you put in rules to protect the majority affected.
deleted by creator
Because Prohibition worked out so well they first time. But yes, let’s learn that lesson again, it’s not like we haven’t been having it reinforced over the last half-century with the War Ear Drugs.
But this time it will be different, right?
Tell me you’re not a smoker without telling me you’re not a smoker.
You clearly have no idea how tobacco addiction works.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Mind your own fucking business.
I can tell that you’re addicted just by the vitriol in your response here.
Did you start of menthols and other flavored tobacco? Because that’s how a lot of people start. Which is why people are pushing for a ban, so others won’t be as hopelessly addicted as you are.
Fuck you.
It’s my choice.
Mind your own fucking business you fucking asshole.
Here, childhood obesity is a MUCH larger issue than smoking.
Go ban all the artificial flavorings that are in all of the different bowls of sugar, ahem, breakfast cereals, that are shamefully aimed at children in an effort to give them diabetes, just leave the aisle full of plain rasin bran.
Do that and I’ll believe it’s about health and the kids and not simply a power trip controlling another person’s choices.
A lifetime of doctors visits, insulin vials, insulin pumps, blood sugar meters, etc are bleeding this country FAR more than 80 year olds with lung cancer (that probably wasnt even caused by the tobacco).
We should do that, without question. Marketing candy to children as part of a balanced breakfast should be a crime.
Your last sentence, dude. 🤣 Way to ruin your credibility.
Are you suggesting that bad eating habits cause type 1 diabetes?
Wow, denying that tobacco causes cancer is a level of delusion that I had thought died out with the 5th or 6th Marlboro Man (who all died of cancer).
Do you want to know one of the causes of cancer from Tobacco? It might surprise you.
But you’ll ignore this because you’re hopelessly addicted to nicotine, one of the single most addictive chemicals known.
You try to deflect with whataboutisms, but guess what? People are trying to solve those health problems as well. You’re just pissed that they’re trying to solve one that affects your personal addiction.
In places where healthcare is vaguely civilized, your unhealthy addiction becomes my business because it comes with negative social externalities in the form of additional cost and strain on a public health service.
Edit: Spelling
This is an article and discussion specifically about a federal ban in the US. So, unless you live here, it’s not your business.
deleted by creator
That’s not even getting into the possible “fun suprises” we’ll have from all of the microplastics in our bodies.
Should we ban junk food then? How about a fat tax? I’d wager obesity is a far bigger strain on the healthcare system than smoking is.
Doesn’t sound very civilized at all.
Sounds judgy, controlling, biased, and miserable.
That’s what you get from government run healthcare
Exactly why I’m so strongly against government run healthcare
deleted by creator
We need to ban public health