309
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Veedem@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago

I have maybe a cigar a month. Sometimes, a nice dipped cigar is enjoyable. It’d be a shame to just outright ban them.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 15 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] stella@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Welcome to the 'all drugs are bad unless I do them' mentality.

[-] CoderKat@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
309 points (96.7% liked)

News

35754 readers
665 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS