Menthol Cigarettes - Should be banned or nah? (2 Viewers)

Should Menthol cigs be banned?

  • Yes, we need to protect people from themselves

    Votes: 2 4.8%
  • Yes, they are more dangerous than other kinds

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • No, menthol cig ban is racist

    Votes: 12 28.6%
  • No; my body, my choice

    Votes: 27 64.3%

  • Total voters
    42
Stop trying to banning stuff.

Sincerely,

People that will get it whether it's legal or not since the beginning of time

Sure, but the issue isn't really legality in the first place. The issue is how do we protect our kids from crap marketed directly to them?

Fwiw, I don't think menthol or any other flavored smokes should be banned or restricted. I do think their marketing to kids should be severely restricted though.
 
Sure, but the issue isn't really legality in the first place. The issue is how do we protect our kids from crap marketed directly to them?

Fwiw, I don't think menthol or any other flavored smokes should be banned or restricted. I do think their marketing to kids should be severely restricted though.

Can you give examples of menthol cigs being marketed to kids?
 
Can you give examples of menthol cigs being marketed to kids?
I can't, but then, I don't smoke either, so I wouldn't know if they are or not. From the little of what I've read, it seems to be people looking for something to complain about rather than a legitimate problem.

Cigarette advertising is already severely restricted as it is, so I'm not sure where the marketing to kids is coming from. Regardless, any sort of marketing to kids shouldn't be happening at any point.
 
Sure, but the issue isn't really legality in the first place. The issue is how do we protect our kids from crap marketed directly to them?

Fwiw, I don't think menthol or any other flavored smokes should be banned or restricted. I do think their marketing to kids should be severely restricted though.

By being a good and present parent that loves and communicates with them.

Of course not, it's silly. Banning things that there is a high demand for, or that satisfies addiction, or that creates a sense of comfort... Never ever works in this country. It just creates a void in legal supply - which gets filled by opportunistic people willing to do illegal things to fill it.

Until we get past the point where we want to point fingers, and demonize symptoms... and never address the actual cause of the problems... none of this means anything... It's just fodder to raise the hair on peoples' arses and distracts them from ever addressing the root cause of the issue.

I know people have to see this... So I am not sure why we always fall for the "Let's ban stuff" fluff. It literally never works.
 
It would be easier to just raise the tax on them high enough to cover the public cost of healthcare associated with the perils associated with smoking.

If you're dumb enough to smoke at $20 per pack then so be it as long as it funds treatment.

Do you think this could cause a black market where people will sell non-taxed cigarettes? Do you think there could be poor outcomes by policing the black market cigarettes where say, police end up killing a man? Eric Garner's family would think there could be a problem here.
 
Problem is that our constitution and our freedoms are predicated on having a society with a certain level of personal responsibility and respect for others which is sorely lacking
 
Can you give examples of menthol cigs being marketed to kids?

I mean, the major brand of menthols is "Kool." What kid wouldn't want to smoke cool cigarettes?

I'm only half-serious, but I do think that does kind of markets to kids whether intentional or not.

Anyway, I wouldn't ban anything including cocaine, weed, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Just makes laws that require actual effective warnings regarding the nature of the product and let the civil legal system handle products that either don't provide an adequate warning or are not fit for their intended purpose.
 
Last edited:
The race stuff is nonsense. This is about kids. The whole purpose of menthol is to get kids chemically addicted to the product before they are old enough to make an adult choice. I'm way more Libertarian than most people but protecting kids from addiction that becomes a drain on our health system is one of the few things that government is for.
 
If anything, they should probably come up with a way to remove nicotine from tobacco. If that'd happen, it'd make cigarette smoking almost non-existent.
The manufacturers would never do that. The nicotine is the whole point. Return customers who don't want to return but their body makes them. What a cash cow, why give that up?
 
The race stuff is nonsense. This is about kids. The whole purpose of menthol is to get kids chemically addicted to the product before they are old enough to make an adult choice. I'm way more Libertarian than most people but protecting kids from addiction that becomes a drain on our health system is one of the few things that government is for.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this, but out of curiosity, what do you see as the source of this government power/obligation?
 
And so adopting authoritarian measures is justified?
Not at all. I think we are just pretty much screwed and will end up in an authoritarian state regardless because that is what will fill that vacuum

What I think will happen isn't what I want to happen
 
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this, but out of curiosity, what do you see as the source of this government power/obligation?
Whatever the source of the whole FDA was. I got a B- in con law but I think the "interstate commerce" clause is the the all-purpose answer to anything you don't like.

The founding fathers being largely tobacco farmers, I doubt you could find an "originalist" argument for it.
 
Do you think this could cause a black market where people will sell non-taxed cigarettes? Do you think there could be poor outcomes by policing the black market cigarettes where say, police end up killing a man? Eric Garner's family would think there could be a problem here.

I don't care.

If you break the law you suffer the consequences.

Of course, the consequences for purchasing cigarettes or selling them should not be death by cop, but we can fix that by punishing the cops who fail at their job.
 
Whatever the source of the whole FDA was. I got a B- in con law but I think the "interstate commerce" clause is the the all-purpose answer to anything you don't like.

The founding fathers being largely tobacco farmers, I doubt you could find an "originalist" argument for it.

I mean, it's actually the "commerce among the several States" clause and SCOTUS' use of the phrase "Commerce Clause" and "Interstate Commerce Clause" has done a lot of the heavy lifting in the ever expanding overreach of the Federal Government. However, I suspect it could fit under the "general welfare" clause.

But, I think if you do fit it under either of those, it becomes really hard not to use the same things to justify all sorts of government bans and taxes.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom