politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This...this is literally them listening to their voters?
They wanted to do something, and their voters said "we don't like that", so they stopped.
So many things to complain about this president, but this little story is good news if we want the president to listen to voters.
The Biden administration has been fighting to prevent Obamacare from getting gutted.
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.
He has already raised taxes on the rich, via the American Rescue Plan. (It also lowers taxes on the poor and middle class.)
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.
Could you specify what you even mean, here?
Way to admit you don't know any Black people rofl
Removed, civility.
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
Who the fuck cares if someone is smoking, menthol, or regular, like what’s the point?
Menthol makes tobacco more addictive, so it's more harmful than without. That's the point of the ban in the first place
That's just straight up not true.
And who cares. Let people have their vices. Stop trying to police people's bodies.
I'm not a proponent of banning drugs, just trying to find some reasoning behind it.
So it's racist if he bans them and racist if he doesn't. Cool. Got it. That's not stupid at all.
Could you explain?
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.
Totally! Here's a quote right from the article:
"An estimated 85 percent of Black smokers use menthol cigarettes, according to federal statistics."
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.
Why ban JUST flavored vapes?
Now you're getting it
Because change like this happens by degrees.
Funny how often these changes target minorities first and then go no further
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.
Sure, okay. What steps towards making cigarettes less appealing to the general population would you take?
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.
And yet, overall. Smoking reduction efforts in the US have been pretty effective.
How many of these smoking reduction efforts have banned cigarettes
Several?
One would think tobacco being criminalized would have been bigger news
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.
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.
You can fairly easily find several studies if you look up the EU ban in your favored search engine.
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
My brother in christ, you just said that literally everything is racist. Take a step back and think about that.
Since when listening to black voters is racist?
I see you're speaking from experience.
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.
So I guess he wasn’t completely out of touch.