As per moderator request, a unique comment for yall. Enjoy.
Screw the prohibitionists.
There will come a moment when humanity triumphs over the war on drugs, granting individuals the autonomy to decide what substances they consume.
And when that day arrives… will you witness drug users discriminating against those who choose sobriety?
Will you observe prisons constructed for those who opt to remain drug-free?
Will individuals be branded as criminals for abstaining from substances?
Will drug users advocate for the militarization of law enforcement and the erosion of our constitutional rights in an attempt to impose their lifestyle on others?
NO.
Who would inflict such harm on others? Prohibitionists.
And we stand against them.
Legalizing marijuana alone won't address the most severe repercussions of the war on drugs.
Full legalization of all substances is the ultimate harm reduction strategy.
Of course, he has no spine. He can't govern over communist flavored sentiment. This also proves that democracy does not work to improve society unless the voter agrees with it. Now we can see how lobbies control this man. I do not consider him a real leader.
Yes, literally. I live in California and here we talk about "effective bans" on new housing quite a bit. No, it's not a straightforward ban, but it's so many permits and taxes and requirements that it's an effective ban (although zoning is a straightforward ban).
Menthol cigarettes are purchased disproportionately by African-American smokers, with 80% of African-American smokers consuming menthol cigarettes primarily.
Honestly, we see where banning things gets us. Millions of people in prison and or killed over these things because there's black markets for them because people want them.
Even if you do that you risk creating a black market that will be served by organised crime. In Australia it's an issue where tobacco shops get firebombed, and that's with just expensive cigarettes, not outright bans.
Here in Canada, we have a loophole in the law where indigenous have the right to use tobacco without taxation due to tradition. Which is totally fair - but it also applies to modern mass produced cigarettes for some reason.
As a result of ever increasing taxes on tobacco, I would reckon that at this point 80% of cigarettes smoked in my community have been smuggled off of a reserve. The black market is booming with "Rez smokes" selling for $5-10 a pack while legal cigs go for ~$30.
The federal government recently introduced a regulation mandating a health warning printed on every cigarette. Most agree it's a transparent attempt for the police to spot an illegal smoke in your hand, as Rez smokes don't have warnings on them. They are losing a ton of revenue to the black market, and are trying to crack down with heavy fines for even possessing a pack off of a reserve.
Just criminalize the sale, not the possession. When they vanish from storefronts and become much harder to find, many people will switch to alternatives like vapes, or reduce their consumption. Don’t bother with citing individuals for possessing them; Just fine the fuck out of any storefronts caught selling them, and/or take their tobacco sale permits away.
That would fuel a black market even more because now customers don't need to take any risk so more profit for those who do take the risk on the selling side.
And if they just do fines, it will become a cost of business. If they lock people up, then it's just another front in the ridiculous drug war that does more harm on its own than the drugs themselves do.
As much as I don't like smoking still being a thing, use is trending down on its own and people should have a right to choose what they do with their bodies, even if it fucks them up or they end up regretting it later. As a society, we've been fucking up our environment more than smoking ever has to the point where just existing in a large city is as bad as smoking because of the car exhaust, and that's for everyone, not just those who choose to drive or ride in cars.
Though I would be in favour of mandating that some majority portion of cigarette profits go to paying for the health treatments and would also be open to some kind of asterisk on healthcare coverage for those who live in places with public healthcare and choose to smoke, maybe requiring some kind of insurance policy to help pay for healthcare they might end up needing.
It depends on the size of the store, but that isn’t necessarily true. A lot of convenience stores are franchises, and you definitely could talk to the owner.
My point isn’t really to define what a store is, but rather to point out that it is really tricky to place blame appropriately when you are banning a substance that people want to buy. How far down the chain do you prosecute?
Much better to simply teach people the truth about their health and let them make their own decisions rather than try to control and blame, in my opinion.
Fair enough, I generally think prosecution is a bad idea if it can be at all avoided because then taxpayers have to pay for that person to be prosecuted in court and if they end up guilty have to keep them in jail and I don't agree with that if it can be avoided.
The Biden administration has been fighting to prevent Obamacare from getting gutted.
Student loans
He literally just forgave a bunch of student loans a couple weeks ago, and he's trying to do it piecemeal after SCOTUS blocked his attempt to do it wholesale.
Taxing the rich
He has already raised taxes on the rich, via the American Rescue Plan. (It also lowers taxes on the poor and middle class.)
Not funding a genocide
Look. His job, as president, is to try to keep the Middle East from descending into WWIII. We can have Biden, who is trying to use what leverage he has on Netanyahu, or we can have Trump, who will gleefully send the Middle East into total war. Pick one.
This is literally about saving black ppls lives dude get a clue.
Google how many black ppl die every year from smoking and then Google what percentage of menthol smokers are white and then sit down and shut the fuck up.
So if they banned malt liquor on the grounds of saving black lives, that wouldn't be racist? What about fried chicken? Fried food causes cardiovascular disease. Orange soda causes diabetes.
But that's not even the point. The point is, he was going to ban them because they're bad for you, but decided not to for the votes because black people smoke newports or something. he's letting them die so he can get reelected
He’s letting them make adult choices like everybody else about their health.
People don’t need to be saved from themselves, and it is extremely condescending to act like the black population has been bamboozled by menthol cigarettes any more or less than any other smoker.
And I'm all about that. I think it's ridiculous that the president was even considering banning menthol cigarettes. But what's even more ridiculous is that his campaign manager or whatever put a focus group together and delivered research to his desk saying "Mr president sir, if you ban newports you're gonna lose reelection because black people won't like it" and so he decided not to do it.
So you're implying black people aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions about their health and they need the feds to ban something they like for their own good. That's the most white savior shit I've ever heard
No dumbass, it will negatively affect legally PoC communities where instances of menthol smoking are higher because they’ll turn to the black market and we all saw how cops like to treat people selling loose cigarettes.
But sure prattle on about racism without giving a second thought to anything
I assume that they are a white conservative who has never talked with a Black person or they don’t know anything about US Black culture. In reality, menthols are super popular among Black smokers. I assume they think it’s a racial stereotype instead of reality.
I mean why ban JUST menthol cigarettes. Yes they're not good for you. No cigarettes are. It seemed to be an odd move unless they are somehow out and away much worse. That and yes. Bans are often useless. Money would be better spent addressing the factors that make people want to smoke and provide better alternatives. It'd be cheaper and more effective. I think the only down side to it is a threat to corporate profits. Which is a good downside to have if you ask me.
Because they’re the only legal non tobacco flavoring left. The idea is that flavored tobacco encourages smoking. I disagree regarding menthol, but I see it and I’m open to being swayed by data.
Because they're worse than regular cigarettes for multiple reasons. You tend to inhale longer and more deeply which is worse for your lungs, you might even smoke more since you don't feel the smoke and they don't really fix the whole craving, they were at least in the EU also more popular among young kids and generally more addicting.
I'm no expert. My natural reaction is those arguments sound specious. But not out of the question. Do you have a link to something solid. Reporting/research to share on this. Would be interesting if true. Like I said I'm not an expert. Not even a smoker. Had no one in my immediate family has smoked since the mid-1980s. So I have little doubt there are gaps in my knowledge.
Is there a “predominantly white” flavor of cigarette? Can you explain how you would take steps to ban cigarettes, without “targeting minorities” and without an immediate outright ban?
I wouldn't take steps to ban cigarettes. Prohibition never stops people from doing what they want to do, usually makes things worse, and usually disproportionally affects minorities.
Well, since this isn't proposing "banning cigarettes", and nothing in the parent comments was about banning them outright (in fact the opposite was the point), then it made no sense that you would be asking about that.
I thought you meant banning SOME cigarettes (or ban smoking in some cases) which would have been way more relevant.
But there are many kinds of cigarettes that are banned (and this would be another one), and many scenarios where smoking is banned. Those sorts of things have been part of why smoking has dropped significantly, without outright banning.
Hence, you know, the context of the things you were replying to here.
Stay the course. Smoking is trending down. Continue educational programs so everyone knows the risks, but ultimately leave it up to adults to make their own decisions.
Weird and kinda funny. Where I live, before they got banned, they were rather stereotyped with "weaker men", effeminate men, old snobby ladies, etc. but they also had a strong tendency to be popular with kids, since you don't really feel the smoke you inhale. Personally I always felt like this was a downside when I was still smoking, because it was like you're just inhaling air, which didn't actually satisfy my need for a cigarette.
Edit: Could the downvoters clarify what about my anecdote is worth downvoting?
That’s how I felt about menthols when I was a smoker. When they were first introduced I believe those were the ‘demographics’ they targeted, but the shifted to pushing on black folks in like the 60s if I remember correctly
Not every Black person likes menthol, and lots of people of different ethnicities smoke the hell out of them.
This says it was done explicitly to win over Black voters...
Like, if Biden wanted to make up for his border comments by mandating Taco Tuesday at the White House.
Or since he didn't decriminalize cannabis federally, he gives every American a coupon for a free slushie from 7/11.
Or gave advocoda toast to everyone over 30 that can't afford to buy a house in America.
Like, fried chicken and watermelon isn't racist, it's delicious. But if you daughter is dating a Black man and that's what for dinner the first time he comes over. It's questionable.
But if you tell him you made it to win him and over and prove your not racist....
By saying the reason is to win over specifically that demographic, it means you're so out of touch you don't realize that makes it more racist. You're throwing away any plausible deniability.
Even if it's good intentioned, it's a racial stereotype you're just voluntarily telling everyone you believe in.
I’m a dem voter and non-smoker, but this issue was pushing me away. I also felt that this law disproportionally targeted black people, and I’m glad that it isn’t going anywhere.
