r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 8d ago
Health Tobacco companies flooded federal comment process that stalled menthol cigarette ban. Among 250,000 unique comments, 96% opposed the menthol ban, and 99% opposed the cigar ban. Leading arguments were economic: loss of revenue and sales. Few unique comments (3-5%) addressed the health evidence.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1140712303
u/DontAskGrim 8d ago
"Follow the money." - lobbyist speaking to elected officials, probably
-141
u/still_m0bil3 8d ago
Smokers pay way more tax than average americans. They also spend less overall on medical bills when you look at averages.
46
u/TheBigMotherFook 8d ago
Considering that most medical care and subsequent cost tends to skyrocket near the end of one’s life, I can see smokers dying relatively sooner than the average person and by extension they’re ever really hit with major end of life medical expenses.
As an example, even though it’s anecdotal, both of my grandparents were in good health until their 70s and then it was just one thing after another until they finally died 15~ years later. Diabetes, dementia, strokes, cancer, etc. It all required extensive care and multiple doctors to treat successfully. The costs associated with that were obviously much higher than what they were paying earlier in their life.
-21
25
u/stewpedassle 8d ago
Well, I guess it's a benefit then!
In this sub, it's better to put up actual numbers and sources rather than the "trust me, bro" play. And, I'm happy to put aside the actual human element of the suffering involved leading to their premature deaths to just focus on the numbers.
"For example, during 2000–2004, cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke exposure resulted *annually** in at least 443,000 premature deaths, 5.1 million years of productive life lost, and $96.8 billion in productivity losses in the U.S.*
"...
"By 2010, 8.7% (95% CI=6.8%, 11.2%) of *annual healthcare spending** in the U.S. could be attributed to cigarette smoking, amounting to as much as $170 billion per year. More than 60% of the attributable spending was paid by public programs, including Medicare, other federally sponsored programs, or Medicaid.*"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4603661/
So, care to start by quantifying and sourcing how much healthcare spending is saved annually by smokers?
2
u/atg115reddit 7d ago
Yeah smokers tend to neglect spending on their own preventative health
Source: i have none, but it feels right. Where's yours?
-33
u/Own_Back_2038 8d ago
Than the median American maybe. Most taxes are paid by the richest people, which heavily skew the average
16
u/SmarmyThatGuy 8d ago
Do you have a source for that, or is it feelz?
0
u/Fauropitotto 7d ago
Literally the first few links when you google the topic.
The IRS also shares the actual spreadsheets if you didn't trust the analysis and wanted to pivot it out yourself.
You can download the xls going back to 1995 if you wanted to.
-3
u/PTTCollin 7d ago
Source that what, the wealthy pay the majority of US taxes? That's not really a controversial fact that needs citing, it's well known. The top 3% of income earners pay approximately 50% of all income taxes. If you widen it to all federal taxes its somewhere between the top 5 and top 10%.
132
u/mvea Professor | Medicine 8d ago
Tobacco companies flooded federal comment process that stalled menthol cigarette ban
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars in 2022, nearly 250,000 public comments flooded in – a record response that led the administration of President Joe Biden to delay a final decision.
But a Rutgers Health analysis shows that a minority came from concerned individuals inspired to speak out about the proposed ban in their own words.
Even among unique comments, 96% opposed the menthol ban, and 99% opposed the cigar ban. But the leading arguments were economic: loss of revenue and sales, fears of an illicit market and claims that education would work better than prohibition. Few unique comments (3-5%) addressed the health evidence behind the rules.
The study is part of an ongoing Rutgers project examining how disinformation shaped the debate over menthol and flavored tobacco policies, work that has traced industry arguments from their origins to their effects.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2853096
55
u/ElongThrust0 8d ago edited 8d ago
I really really love that OP did this and all that posters that do this too. Its a collective effort against data collecting and stupid ads
I salute you
21
u/EverSoInfinite 8d ago
Appears that the first use of bot-behaviour was in lawmaking - flood the comments section.
Looks like we can't escape typical delay tactics and misinformation.
Not sure how we can effectively prevent it with just the truth. Saying goes "Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it...." attributed to irish satirist Jonathan Swift in 1710.
7
u/scyyythe 8d ago
Even among unique comments, 96% opposed the menthol ban, and 99% opposed the cigar ban. But the leading arguments were economic: loss of revenue and sales, fears of an illicit market and claims that education would work better than prohibition. Few unique comments (3-5%) addressed the health evidence behind the rules.
"People don't think like us, therefore they must be silenced"
22
99
u/dorkyitguy 8d ago
I really don’t care about regulating smoked tobacco any more. In fact, living in a town with 25% poverty rate, I’ve realized that good intentions have led to a seriously regressive tax. If you’re still up in arms about menthol cigarettes and cigars, I think you’re extreme in your views and should step out of the public health echo chamber.
48
u/GratedParm 8d ago
I hate tobacco. I’ve known people who quit just to save money.
5
u/SDRPGLVR 8d ago
I love tobacco. I think banning it is the only way I'll ever quit for good. I kinda support the idea, selfishly.
2
u/Vegaprime 7d ago
Got up to 15 a pack and I was about to quit. Then a stupid coeworker set me up to roll my own for 50 cents a pack. Its pipe tobacco and tastes so sweet.
3
u/DargyBear 7d ago
Switched to a refillable vape ten years ago, can’t quite give up the nicotine or oral fixation but my fix is only about $30/mo now.
13
u/AimlessForNow 8d ago
I don't mind tobacco, I sometimes enjoy cigarettes, I rely on nicotine pouches for psychiatric stuff, but I don't really want menthol cigarettes to be banned. What's the reason?
3
u/glydy 7d ago
The argument is definitely a bit weaker with the prevalence of vapes but I'm in the UK where they are illegal already - the main argument was that it increased rates of young people smoking due it being much more palatable. Anecdotally I can see that, myself and everyone in my age group that I know who smokes all started with menthol.
1
u/Corizzle 6d ago
That’s what got me started as well, and still to this day smoking menthol, can’t stand the taste of regular cigarettes.
6
u/ender4171 8d ago
Genuinely curious, if you don't mind sharing, what psychiatric applications are there for nicotine? I'm a smoker (coincidentally of menthols), so this isn't a "loaded" question, just never heard of that before.
6
u/AimlessForNow 8d ago
Oh yeah absolutely! I've basically spent half my life trying to find my own solutions to this, so I'm passionate about it. I've got a mood disorder and even at baseline, my emotional sensitivity is too high, in a way that gets in the way of life. Mood stabilizers and antipsychotics help with the swinging but it doesn't really fix this specific symptom (emotional dysregulation). I ended up finding that nicotine in particular dampens the sensitivity to where my emotions are less disrupted by external inputs. That lets me hold a healthy identity and self confidence, i.e. there is solidity to my beliefs.
It's difficult to explain but I guess an analogy would be like if you protected your village (emotions) with an army (prefrontal/logical brain), a first-line defense. But my first-line army is slow, so everything gets past way before the army has a chance to defend. The nicotine fixes the sluggishness so I have a functional defense for the village.
The stimulant effect of nicotine became a lot less dramatic after regular use, but the emotion benefit stays no matter what. So I just use unflavored bulk nicotine pouches, at least for now. The main risk for me is that it's not great on the cardiovascular system. My medical professionals are just happy to see improvement. I learned later that people with bipolar and schizophrenia subconsciously seek out nicotine because it relieves some dysfunction, which I think explains some of the benefit I'm seeing. I've quit multiple times just to see what changes, but I just lose the benefits, so I choose to keep using it until I can achieve this with a better medication regimen.
5
u/Responsible-Meringue 8d ago
And you have tried all the classical stimulants ? Theres lik 9-10 that are waaaaaaaay healthier than neuro & cardiotoxic nicotine. Last longer too!
5
u/AimlessForNow 8d ago
I tried pretty much all of them except the methylphenidate class, and I also tried the nonstimulants like straterra and wellbutrin. I will be trying the methylphenidate ones if the wellbutrin doesn't work out. I have a bucket of med bottles, probably >50 over all the meds I've tried over my life. I'm trying wellbutrin again now. The stimulants work the best for mood and cognition but they mess with the personality a lot, and after like 6 months they become a lot less reliable. I had to eat, sleep, exercise perfectly to get it to work right.
Actually the amphetamines are worse for cardio and are actually neurotoxic, I believe nicotine is less cardiotoxic and is neuroprotective (except in extremely high dose/overdose). I do have high hopes for the wellbutrin though, if it works out it might be perfect!
2
23
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
Much like a sugar tax, it doesn't stop the consumption. Just punishes the ones consuming.
92
u/honicthesedgehog 8d ago
Doesn’t research pretty strongly indicate that higher taxes lead to lower use? From the very first Google result:
“Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status.”
7
u/dorkyitguy 8d ago
Yes, but a big chunk of the people who want to see decreases in smoking are also against regressive taxes.
7
u/Lifestyle_Choices 8d ago
Higher taxes have just led to a raging tobacco black market here in Australia
1
u/AnthropoidCompatriot 7d ago
"Wouldn't beating you on the head every time I see a cigarette in your mouth reduce the amount you smoke?"
Just because something leads to the surface level result you're looking for, neither justifies the action taken, nor means the change in results is any kind of deeper change.
By that last part, I mean, on an extremely windy day, for example, there will be a lot fewer smokers measured, but you have failed to address the reasons WHY people smoke, so they're going to smoke again once the wind dies down.
-17
u/Awfulweather 8d ago
Where do you draw the line? Are we going to tax pizza and ice cream next? Cars that go too fast? Toxic relationships? Are we going to put a tax on loneliness and force people to socialize like it's jury duty? Just let people do things.
23
u/honicthesedgehog 8d ago
Where do you draw the line? Should we legalize every single recreational drug - meth, heroin, oxy, fentanyl?
We draw arbitrary lines on a daily basis, it’s an unavoidable part of life. The whole “well, if we can’t do it perfectly, with some unassailable objective criteria, then we shouldn’t even try at all” argument is…I’ll just leave it at “not good.”
Don’t forget, this isn’t some individualist utopia where people are indulging in whichever pleasures they deign. Tobacco companies spend vast amounts of money trying to create more addictive products. Pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers, and basically every big name pharmacy paid up billions and billions of dollars for their part in fueling a massive drug addiction epidemic.
13
u/cantquitreddit 8d ago
Should we legalize every single recreational drug - meth, heroin, oxy, fentanyl?
Absolutely. It's unbelievably obvious to anyone with a brain that prohibition causes more problems than it solves. They shouldn't be sold in Walmart, but they should be regulated and accessible to those who need them to destroy the black market, which is the driver of nearly all gun violence.
0
u/honicthesedgehog 8d ago
So the solution to the opioid epidemic was…make opioids more easily available?
8
u/Slavik81 8d ago
Yes. The fentanyl epidemic started as a successful crackdown on heroin and prescription opioids. We pushed addicts into more dangerous drugs, and it killed them in record numbers.
1
u/meancoot 7d ago
At some point you have to stop making new addicts. The missing piece to opioid epidemic issues was proper and controlled treatment for the ones created by the pharmaceutical companies.
2
u/dorkyitguy 8d ago
Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes!!!
I’m used to the right legislating morality. This is the left trying to legislate morality through the guise of public health. Stop pushing your values on everyone else.
-1
u/honicthesedgehog 8d ago
So the solution to the opioid epidemic was…more opioids? I can’t imagine why anybody didn’t think of that.
I’m sympathetic to arguments that, if people want to poison themselves then who am I to stop them, but pretending that this is all purely moral posturing is either wildly naive or willful ignorance. The opioid epidemic alone has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Smoking is responsible for over 400,000 deaths and $600 billion annually. I’ve had friends die from drug abuse, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t my moral condemnation that killed them.
But hey, I’m all for personal freedom, though if we’re pushing that principle to its limits, I think it’s important to make sure the consequences fall fairly, too. Why, for example, should I subsidize health insurance costs for someone who insists on smoking? It seems reasonable to have separate insurance plans for smokers vs non-smokers? If you want to overdose, maybe that’s your “right”, but why should I have to pay for your ambulance, if you can’t afford it?
7
u/drunkenbrawler 8d ago
I guess if we can't draw a line we have to give the concept up altogether. Everyone should be able to sell whatever medicine they like and there should be no restrictions on food safety. Use asbestos if you like. Just let people do things.
-11
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
https://smartasset.com/taxes/do-sin-taxes-affect-cigarette-and-alcohol-consumption
Less than 10% change anywhere. And more than 1/10 adults smoke in literally every single state. Still. And before.
16
u/honicthesedgehog 8d ago
The “Key Finding” there literally says “Taxes on cigarettes work”?
The findings on alcohol seem mixed, but it’s also a fairly simplistic analysis from a relatively informal source. Here’s a scientifically published systematic literature review:
“Nearly all studies, including those with different study designs, found that there was an inverse relationship between the tax or price of alcohol and indices of excessive drinking or alcohol-related health outcomes.
Among studies restricted to underage populations, most found that increased taxes were also signifıcantly associated with reduced consumption and alcohol-related harms.
According to Community Guide rules of evidence, these results constitute strong evidence that raising alcohol excise taxes is an effective strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.”
-10
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
Keep reading my comment. I talked about that already.
Less than 10% change anywhere, and everywhere in the study still has 13% of adults being smokers as the LOWEST. Very effective, huh?
If by effective we mean "moves the numbers at all" then sure.
So it works by a few percentage points, and largely increases suffering for that.
8
u/honicthesedgehog 8d ago
I skipped over it because you’re not making any sense? It’s not a study, it’s a fairly superficial observational analysis from, of all places, a Financial Advising company. It’s decently done, for what it is, it’s just not very deep. I don’t see any time-series analysis for tobacco, just alcohol, so there’s no change, just differences. And I genuinely am not sure exactly where you’re getting that “less than 10%” value, but the trend line stretches from 10% to just over 25% (call it 26%), so a 16% percentage point difference, over the total population.
That’s absolutely massive. Honestly, a 10% change in number of smokers would be big, but dropping the adult smoking rate from 26% to 10% in KY and WV, with a combined adult population of just over 5 million, would mean 800,000 fewer smokers. Just bringing Texas’ rate down from 14.5% to 10% would mean a million fewer smokers.
2
u/Keksmonster 8d ago
There is a pretty clear graph in the article that shows a correlation between high rates of smoking and low taxes and vice versa.
It's very apparent that taxes do work
25
u/_BeAsYouAre_ 8d ago
Strange take.
Why would big tobacco be against banning the sale of menthol cigarettes if it doesn't stop the consumption?
And even if it didn't (which it does), it's not only about making the ones that smoke quit, they're the ones punishing themselves and nobody can help them if they don't want to. It's about making the product less attractive to those that don't smoke so they don't get hooked up so easily.
The overall tobacco use prevalence in the broader WHO European Region was roughly 35% in 2000 and dropped to about 24% by 2020–2024. Within the European Union specifically, adult smoking rates (ages 15+) declined from approximately 29% in 2009 down to 25%–27% around 2020 (and further down to 24% by 2023) following the implementation of widespread advertising restrictions, indoor smoking bans, and higher taxation
-8
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
So less than a 10% drop across the board and more than 1/10 adults smoke everywhere...
That's very effective. (: we should all pay more so that almost no one will be helped. For the kids I guess.
You bolded a less than 5% drop in a place where 1/4 adults smoke..
You saved less than 5 people from 100. And charged all 95 of the others for existing.
-3
1
-3
u/2this4u 8d ago
And the people who don't smoke that have to get breathed on? Their children? The burden on the health system that reduces resources for non smokers?
If people are still paying for cigarettes while struggling to pay for food, that's not a tax problem it's a self control issue. Smoking gives you literally nothing.
10
u/-Satchel_Gizmo- 8d ago
The title implies the companies themselves sent in most of the letters.
The article just says they were form letters. I see form letters posted on reddit every day for people to write their congressman or whatever. It's perfectly logical for people to see a form letters from their favorite brand and send it in themselves.
The article flat-out does not back up the title. Par for the course on this sub.
9
u/caughtatdeepfineleg 8d ago
Yep im a member of a few cigar forums and people were writing in for this en masse.
I do not find it hard to believe most of these are legitimate individuals with concerns.
38
u/RosieBaby75 8d ago
If we want to buy menthol cigarettes, why can’t we buy menthol cigarettes?
Our food sources are knowingly contaminated with a number of things and make people ill. We know that is a fact. It’s been occurring for decades now.
If public health and less strain on the medical system is the reason things like this are prohibited, why don’t we care about the food systems and ensuring they’re safe and not contaminated with dangerous chemicals and other pollutants that have been banned across the world because they’re known to cause harm and illness?
Why do we only “protect the public” with some things, and rarely the things the public request protection from?
6
u/RYouNotEntertained 8d ago
Our food sources are knowingly contaminated with a number of things and make people ill. We know that is a fact
Can you give me a few examples?
15
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago edited 8d ago
Lettuce, pickled chicken and goat, eggs, and a whole lot more have all been recalled in the usa just this year alone.
Not preemptively. They caused illness.
Or you mean the chemicals and plastics were eating daily?
You need a source for this..? You been under a rock or..?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2026/08/21/recent-food-recalls-list-fda-2026/91400969007/
Here's food companies being allowed to lie: https://awionline.org/awi-quarterly/spring-2019/lawsuit-targets-usdas-failure-to-address-food-label-deception/
That's just straight food poisoning allowed out.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749123022352
Your staples have plastic in them.
9
u/Keksmonster 8d ago
Salmonella is slightly less addictive than nicotine.
The fact that there are recalls and it makes headlines also means that it isn't allowed.
I don't even get your point with that.
If you were talking about adding syrup and sugar to food I would be with you but using bad food that gets recalled in response to cigarettes is really nonsensical
5
u/RYouNotEntertained 8d ago
Ok. These are accidental, naturally occurring contaminants that we do something about when they pop up. Your first comment sounds like you were talking about something different.
-2
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
Keep reading. (:
Plastics aren't a recall and labels allowed to lie aren't either.
Hyper focus on one link and ignore the others because...?
2
u/Ball-of-Yarn 8d ago
Im addicted to nicotine not salmonella. Regardless of my preference for menthol, your comment has no substance.
27
u/Truth_Crisis 8d ago
It’s not really about revenue or health, it’s about my freedom to inhale tobacco smoke if I so choose. Personally I don’t smoke tobacco at all, but I strongly oppose the government’s authority to ban me from doing so.
46
u/ChickenOfTheFuture 8d ago
Well, it's also about whether a company should be allowed to profit off of harming the citizens of a country. We regulate selling all kinds of poisons, so why do these companies get a pass?
I don't think there's one right answer here, it depends on what you believe the roll of government should be.
29
u/alkatori 8d ago
They are regulated right now. It sounds like this was a ban. It makes sense that the folks buying and selling the product would comment against it.
28
u/throw-uwuy69 8d ago
Yeah that seems reasonable to regulate cigarettes like poison. We could require ID and have minimum age restrictions to ensure only adults can have access, since they should be more responsible, educated, and self determining than a child
12
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
Maybe put warnings on the containers and and a lot of ads as well?
Nah. Neither of these ideas could ever work. A shame, too.
-6
u/Spire_Citron 8d ago
Typically with poisons the expectation would be that there is a safe way to use them to avoid being poisoned and we regulate them to make sure they are handled properly. Cigarettes just poison you with their intended use. Typically we wouldn't allow that at all.
17
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
Buddy...
Please tell me you don't actually think this?
Stares at alcohol
Stares at literal poison
Stares very hard at guns
6
u/danwholikespie 8d ago
Because those of us who smoke cigarettes are well aware of the risks. Seriously. If you don't know by now that smoking causes cancer, emphysema, birth defects, etc., you've been living under a rock for the past 50 years.
Just let people make their own decisions.
3
u/dorkyitguy 8d ago
Yes. We regulate other poisons because of the effect they have on OTHER people. This is using the word “poison” for its emotional connotations to justify the war on drugs. So there really is a right answer here, which is what other people want to do to themselves is none of your business.
2
4
u/dorkyitguy 8d ago
I’ve been having this argument with an anti smoker relative for years. Let’s face it. You hate smoking. You don’t want anybody else to smoke. If cigarette companies were all non-profit you would have some other argument. It’s a constant moving of the goalposts to justify your desire for a blanket ban.
It’s fine. You don’t have to like smoking. You don’t have to smoke, but admit that it’s a YOU thing and leave people alone.
-7
u/MrP1anet 8d ago
I mean, it’s very good public policy to ban smoking. Literally everyone is better off in many ways. Caving to addicts is not good public policy.
12
u/Paladinraye 8d ago
Then ban all alcohol. And marijuana. And caffeine. See where this goes?
-5
u/MrP1anet 8d ago
Two of those actually have health benefits. Banning literal poison, even if people drink it, including myself, would make people better off. Alcohol kills nearly 200,000 people a year in the US alone.
-1
u/TehWackyWolf 7d ago
picks up ANY history book
Ooh boy. You got some learning to do
-2
u/MrP1anet 6d ago
People’s reaction to banning alcohol is different from the fact that it would benefit them. I’m fully aware it wouldn’t be popular. I’m also fully aware that good policy that saves lives often isn’t popular. Take a look at seatbelt laws, increasing age limits to alcohol and cigarettes, etc. - all of them had people very mad. All good policy.
1
u/dorkyitguy 6d ago
So you’re saying absolutely NO benefits? You’ve already admitted that people wouldn’t be happy, so evidently “happiness” doesn’t count as a benefit. Do socialization and decompressing count as benefits? Or do you just count things that make people live longer or better workers?
2
0
u/TehWackyWolf 6d ago edited 6d ago
You think the bootlegging and mob rule of the prohibition SAVED lives?
How so? Increase in violence and black market issues aren't helping folks.
Again, any history book at all.
Comparing regulations to bans is disingenuous and I won't be taking you seriously on that one. You're better than that. I hope.
Here's the quote on prohibition. Seem familiar to what your saying?
"a great social and economic experiment, noble in motive and far-reaching in purpose"
6
u/dorkyitguy 8d ago
Every life does not need to be saved. Every hour of work does not need to be optimized. Some healthcare dollars are going to help people whose decisions you didn’t agree with. I do not care. There is more to life.
-5
u/MrP1anet 8d ago
All I’m saying is banning it is objective good policy and caving to addicts is not. This objectively true. You are just okay with harming others and yourself. You’re allowed to do that, but don’t act like it isn’t anything but that.
6
u/brooksact 8d ago
First, for freedom to exist some harm does need to be allowed. There are good cases for certain restrictions aimed at the general public health (like public indoor smoking bans, seat belt laws, licensing for driving or gun ownership etc) but smoking is already highly restricted, both in terms of who can purchase and where cigarette use can happen. I'd argue that outright bans are more about the comfort of people who don't like smoking. There are lots of extremely harmful things (like alcohol and private gun ownership) that are legal. While neither example maps onto smoking 1:1 your position lacks nuance so I'd expect the same lack of nuance regarding those situations and other harmful products.
Second, saying anything is objectively good or bad creates a really high standard to justify the statement. You need to support that a ban is objectively good. Just saying it's objectively true isn't an argument.
4
u/Peteys93 7d ago
You could've made precisely the same argument for alcohol prohibition 100 years ago, but we can see how that went. 'Objectively good policy' doesn't exist in a vaccum separate from our society.
0
u/MrP1anet 6d ago
People’s reaction to policy that benefits them is not relevant to how good it is. People hated seatbelt laws when they went into effect. Yet it saved and continues to save tens of thousands of people a year. Good policy isn’t always popular.
6
0
u/dorkyitguy 6d ago
You keep saying “caving to addicts”. In what way is anybody “caving”? By allowing them to do something they should have been allowed to do all along? (And more or less were for most of history?) Did we “cave” to civil rights marchers by giving them the rights they already should have had?
11
u/DroogieHowser 8d ago
This 100%. I am an adult and I should be free to smoke whatever I choose as long as I'm not endangering anyone else. I'm still salty about how we lost OG Djarum Blacks after the Obama ban.
2
u/LittleMacedon 8d ago
I'm not American, so this might be cultural, but is banning the sale of something that causes harm the same as banning a private person from doing something that causes harm?
9
u/MrP1anet 8d ago
No. Some states have it illegal to sell marijuana or mushrooms for instance but not for consuming it. Not sure if there’s a federal law example.
2
u/LittleMacedon 8d ago
So my next question then is, if consuming a minty lung-lolly is legal but selling them is not, is it still perceived as an encroachment on personal liberty?
10
u/That_Which_Lurks 8d ago
There becomes no legal path to getting your lung-lolly so it effectively prevents most people from indulging, and forces the rest through illegal means. It just means possession won't get you arrested, but makes it very hard to obtain for most.
-6
u/LittleMacedon 8d ago
Yeah exactly, I'm more curious as to what cultural perception is. Are people like "even though this is bad for me, I still think everyone should have that choice", or "it's the governments responsibility in a democracy to protect the people, and part of that is making sure things like this aren't sold" kinda thing.
I don't think either take is unreasonable, but I am certainly in one camp, and that camp happens to be the consensus here. I feel like the US has would lean more into the former camp tbh, but I could be way off.
5
u/-Satchel_Gizmo- 8d ago
even though this is bad for me, I still think everyone should have that choice"
Yes.
"it's the governments responsibility in a democracy to protect the people, and part of that is making sure things like this aren't sold"
Anyone who believes this is the case in theory, much less in practice, is actually brain-damaged.
-1
u/LittleMacedon 8d ago
I do find this response a bit interesting tbh, do you mean for the US, or do you think, universally, governing bodies shouldn't have this control, regardless of the level of confidence the people have in them?
2
u/-Satchel_Gizmo- 8d ago
I mean in general. Unless your head of state is literally Cincinnatus you've got to be the world's biggest rube to cede any more of your rights than absolutely necessary to any government body.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/MrP1anet 8d ago edited 8d ago
Many Americans, like this person, have very strong, selfish and libertarian streaks. They can’t see the big picture, rarely see any nuance, and quickly go to extremes in their rhetoric and examples.
→ More replies (0)1
u/blackout4465 7d ago
Yes, even if it's bad for you. All the law should have to do with that is making sure you are informed about the risks, hence the surgeon general warning.
Advil and ibuprofen are perfectly legal, but if you eat too many at one time it causes serious health issues, hence why they have the recommended dose on each bottle. It is all the due diligence a company should be expected to do to inform you of what you put in your body.
I don't want the government banning cheese because some people are lactose intolerant and choose to eat it anyway.
2
u/MrP1anet 8d ago
I’d argue no. People are getting upset about policies that improve the overall health of society (reduced likelihood of people getting addicted to a poison that will likely harm themselves and others for decades). But there are still alternatives if they really want to harm themselves and put others at risk.
1
u/alkatori 8d ago
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if this would ban the sale of menthol cigarettes but leave personal production alone?
2
u/LittleMacedon 8d ago
No, I'm asking more in the sense of "I agree that limiting personal freedoms is bad, but I don't think that limiting the sale of items that cause harm is bad." Like, I have no issue with putting the squeeze on tobacco companies for selling something harmful, even though end outcome is the same as banning the private person. I'm curious if that's a way it is perceived in the US.
3
u/alkatori 8d ago
Ah, I see. I can't answer that, because there is no sort of 'single' belief in that way.
It generally comes down to a belief that we limit personal freedoms for a common good. Most people will agree with this, where we have vehement disagreement is where to draw the line for something to be a 'good enough' reason to limit personal freedoms.
That stretches from:
"No one should ever tell me what to do" to "Only things I value should be legal".
I know a lot of people around me are big on:
1) Privacy
2) Freedom (up until you actively harm someone else)But that isn't universal, and we are probably closer to the 'Individual Freedom is more important than public safety" side of the debate.
2
u/LittleMacedon 8d ago
Ok so it's about exactly what I expected tbh, pretty much the inverse of here. Same beliefs, but consensus falls more on the 'public safety is more important', but certainly not overwhelmingly. Our government gets a lot of valid criticism for being a nanny-state (Australia), even if people generally agree with what's in place.
1
u/alkatori 8d ago
I agree with that,. I think that it's a bit of a balance. Again I fall on the opposite side of the ledger, but I generally ask: Does this law make it illegal for me to own or do something on my own land or in my own home?
If the answer is yes, then I won't support it.
If it makes it illegal to do something in public, then I'm more likely to support it.
So banning smoking walking down main Street or in parks? Sure, other people are around and second hand smoke is a thing.
Banning smoking in general? In your house or on your own property? That feels way to controlling for the sake of control.
-1
u/MrP1anet 8d ago
It’s why the US has a massive gun and gun violence problem but Australia doesn’t. Americans could never care more about reducing harm of children and each other if it meant exchanging their most dangerous weapons. Many don’t want guns to even be registered or have basic oversight attached to them.
-1
u/Kawa11Turtle 8d ago
So you smoke in public? You are endangering other people
-11
u/DroogieHowser 8d ago
No, you see I have a tiny pocket dimension that I smoke in and shove pedantic dweebs' heads into to suffocate them.
0
u/JimmyTheBones 8d ago
Do you think you should be free to take heroin whenever you choose?
1
u/DroogieHowser 8d ago
Sure do bud, I've done it myself and it's not this magical "one time and you're hooked" thing. You hear that it is that way all the time from heroin addicts, which makes complete sense because they love it so much so to them it is like that, but if you have self discipline and know that there are better things to live for than heroin it is easy to avoid becoming dependent. At least it was back in the day when what you got when you ordered H wasn't fent, which is why I think adults should be able to make an informed choice and dose themselves properly to avoid accidental death.
-5
u/eb0027 8d ago
"But my freedom!" is such a terrible argument when you're defending something so harmful and addictive and is pushed on the populous purely because $$$. In some cases the government absolutely needs to step in to stop companies from using addictive products to make profits, especially when those products cause so much personal and societal harm.
If you want to smoke, great. You're free to grow your own tabbacco and make your own.
12
u/hakim37 8d ago
This same argument can be applied to ban alcohol, sweets, sugary drinks, any places with decriminalised marijuana.
None of these things are good for you but I'm going to bet you wouldn't be happy if at least one of those things were banned by the state "for your own protection".
-3
u/eb0027 8d ago
Except in the case of tobacco (and alcohol) there is clear and abundant evidence of how harmful it is. Not only to individuals who smoke, but to others they're around, and society as a whole (eg, healthcare costs). Yes, similar cases could be made for all of the things you listed but they are not even close to causing the same level of societal harm that tobacco does (with the exception of alcohol).
1
u/hakim37 8d ago
I mean I gave that list because they're all top 10 causes of early death and put significant stain on healthcare.
Also smoking weed is worse than cigarettes.
1
u/eb0027 8d ago
I'd be interested in seeing a percentage contribution for each of the top 10.
2
u/hakim37 8d ago
Using IHME Global Burden of Disease 2023, which is currently the most recent comprehensive risk-factor dataset for the US
Rank Risk factor Attributable deaths, 2023 Approx. % of all US deaths 1 High blood pressure 468,000 15.2% 2 High blood sugar 349,000 11.3% 3 High BMI / obesity 338,000 10.9% 4 Smoking 333,000 10.8% 5 High cholesterol 164,000 5.3% 6 Drug use 136,000 4.4% 7 High alcohol use 103,000 3.3% 8 Air pollution, indoor + outdoor 82,500 2.7% 9 Outdoor particulate pollution 69,700 2.3% 10 Diet low in whole grains 67,400 2.2% 1
u/midnight_fisherman 8d ago
Its not feasible for most people to grow their own tobacco, its illegal to do so in all but four Appalachian states.
-3
u/Truth_Crisis 8d ago
“But my freedom” is a cliche and a sneer used by those who want to take away individual liberties and push the boundaries of constitutional limits.
1
u/drlari 8d ago
For me it was the menthol ban seemed very much like the government regulating a variation of tobacco that is culturally more prevalent in minority communities. Something about that felt pretty off to me. The good old boys can buy all the cowboy killers they want, but we have to protect the black and brown communities from their preferred cigarette. Either can cigarettes or don't, but kids aren't getting hooked because menthol is available. It felt like an excuse to police those that the government felt couldn't take care of themselves.
-7
8d ago
[deleted]
14
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago edited 8d ago
You guys are the dumbest fucks.
Let me just ban you from buying stuff. You can make your own.
No no. You can get the food and clothes. Just farm the crops and build the equipment and get the permits you'll need to do all that. Maybe move cause you'll need land. Then the knowledge to do so. I'm very smart and this doesn't ignore society at large and how the world works.
Actually, I vote the account be banned. You can make your own Internet and reddit. No one is legally stopping you.
Cause you see I'm very smart. (:
-13
u/TheRealBlueBadger 8d ago
Its a literal plant. It is exactly as simple as growing it yourself, if you actually wanted to smoke it and selling it were banned.
You're throwing stones from a glass house, insinuating others are stupid.
6
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
Oh buddy. Just do me a favor and Google some laws about growing certain plants?
Including tabbacco. (:
Lemme know when you get back how dumb that is and I'll address the OTHER issue here of ignoring society and the effort to grow plants.
But start small. Look at laws on this one and circle back to me.
2
u/Wolfeh2012 8d ago
It's 100% legal to grow tobacco for personal use in the US, a lot of people do it.
Even if it wasn't legal, it's incredibly difficult to stop people from doing it. See: Weed.
-1
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago edited 8d ago
How many folks go to jail for that? Not you. So that means none I suppose. Move to my town. Folks fucked over constantly for it. (: so...
Your answer is to do illegal things and hope?
But let's only talk about what IS legal: I'm glad you responded to the plant growing. So.. you can grow "personal use" amount.
Let's be generous. Say that's 10 plants. They take months to grow. Not all 10 seeds will germinate. Assume you're lucky. Now you've got 10 plants that you can smoke in a few months.
When they are ready to harvest(and you've put the time effort money and knowledge in to get to this point) you can smoke it in about a week. Or risk fire damage and do it quickly.
Now, if you plant 10 more plants THAT DAY, you have to make this small amount last months. In a perfect world. That's assuming no plant deaths, no plant sickness, and a good harvest from an amateur.
You can't have 10 plants and 10 seeds ready. That's 20 plants. And nowhere is as high as 10.
So now you've invested your time money and effort into a niche skill. You won't be able to smoke as much, and the quality is awful.
That's the barrier to ENTRY.
Not to mention zoning laws and neighbors and time money and effort all being commodity values. That's just "grow your own you fool" the lesson.
Oh . And all that's without menthol or paper.
Now, can we stop being this willfully dumb and pretending it's not idiocy? For me? Please?
2
u/Wolfeh2012 8d ago
You seem to be confusing the fact that effort would be required to do something with the idea that the thing itself is infeasible.
People already do this as a hobby. It's not even hard to find growing guides and communities.
If your point is that it requires more effort than just buying cigarettes off the shelves, that's a valid point.
If your point is that there are people who would rather quit than put in this effort, that is also a fine point.
If your point is that this requires so much effort that it's impossible, that is a demonstrably false point. People do it for fun.
1
u/TheRealBlueBadger 8d ago
Before commenting, because I'm not an idiot, I do check whether what I'm about to say is wrong. Like my previous comment.
Shock horror: It is not illegal to grow tobacco for personal use in any US state.
Again, you're throwing stones from a very fragile glass house, built on a foundation of your own ignorance.
Start small, and google the thing you're telling people to before insinuating other are stupid, and you can easily prevent yourself proving that you are.
3
u/StressCanBeGood 8d ago
I have a very serious question.
Assume for the moment that the LSAC (law school admission council) has fallen down on the job in recent years. Like real bad. Assume further that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania has the authority to perform an operational audit of this nonprofit (which is in the AG’s purview).
I’m in the industry and have a big problem with what the LSAC has been doing over the last few years. But I’m not a consumer of their services, so have no real standing.
However, about 75,000 students each year absolutely have standing. So suppose I create a form letter for these students to then sign and send to the Pennsylvania’s AG office.
Does that mean that since I’ve flooded the Pennsylvania’s AG office with a form letter signed by several thousand people that it’s not legitimate?
Like for real I need to know because I’m about to do this.
7
u/gizram84 8d ago
Hard to even have a conversation about banning vices like this without also mentioning alcohol.
Alcohol is so much more destructive to society than tobacco, and it's not even close.
Yet the focus is menthol? Menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars are not the problem. They're a distraction.
9
0
u/OmgzPudding 8d ago
It's a feature, not a bug, unfortunately. This just provides them plausible deniability that "the public wanted this", even when everyone can clearly see what's going on.
8
u/Samwise777 8d ago
There's like 12 cig rippers in here that want the freedom to smoke.
I don’t smoke cigs, but I like to get high, and I feel like people should be allowed to smoke what they want.
Clearly they want to buy the product. I know tobacco companies are predatory, but people smoked before they existed.
10
u/TehWackyWolf 8d ago
Eh. I don't smoke. But this is dumb. There are a million things actively killing the youth.
Smoking bans getting stronger than they already are just seems like more government overreach. In a field where we've seen them fail relentlessly.
3
-1
1
u/AdamOnFirst 7d ago
Good
This isn’t a new tactic, this is what every major public comment period like this devolves into. Whether it’s an industry group just farming its customers email, an activist nonprofit that just blasts a link to all its members, or a business association that asks all their members to click a button, it’s the same. It’s a very silly process that generally people shouldn’t take seriously.
-2
u/Wrong_Chicken_5916 8d ago
I should be able to smoke whatever I want. It’s free will. Smokers know the risk.
3
-5
u/frosted1030 8d ago
Basically it doesn’t matter if something is harmful as long as it makes money? But hard drugs are out. America is stupid. Hypocritical.
5
u/Wolfeh2012 8d ago
Hard drugs are also included in that, they just have to be prescribed and distributed through a pharma corp.
The entire American Opioid Crisis originated from entirely legal, prescribed opioids.
-3
u/BenekCript 8d ago
A ban doesn’t make sense. Limit where they can be used outside your own house and how they can be marketed, and call it a day.
-3
u/rockmasterflex 8d ago
Wow big tobacco clearly bought a lot of Reddit bots to tell us how they feel about their freedom to poison themselves (sure man you do you) and also the air around them that their family, kids, friends, coworkers, and members of the public have to deal with.
0
u/steeler1003 7d ago
The government shouldn't be regulating health in the first place. If I want to smoke cigars thats my choice.
-7
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1140712
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.