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
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.