Support NeoGAF

[kame-sennin]

I'm all for a nationwide ban on cigarettes. In fact, I think the best time to implement this is in conjunction with free healthcare in disguise as a future cost-saving measure. Until the ban can be made across the board it shouldn't be done, though.

Banning menthols is at best is going to be seen as white people doing what they believe is best for blacks, which is condescending. At worst it's going to be viewed as limiting the freedom of one group, while not touching anothers. In reality, this is exactly what the ban would be doing. Why not make wearing bicycle helmets mandatory for blacks and not whites?...it would save black lives.

I think it's far easier to defend not banning menthols to the public than the latter.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The ban on menthols does not target blacks - anyone can smoke menthols, and blacks can smoke any type of cigarette. What the ban does is prevent the cigarette companies from targeting blacks because they know they tend to prefer menthols. And it's no different from protecting young people by banning flavored cigarettes, which this law will do. The purpose of the flavor ban is to prevent the cigarette companies from unfairly targeting specific groups, the only racist thing going on is leaving blacks out of the groups that would be protected.

Er....the legislation is for banning flavors, not just menthol. In fact they're trying to GET menthol added because it's being specifically excluded.

Exactly (that part probably should have been bolded in the OP). It seems kind of racist to ban all flavors of cigarettes EXCEPT the ones preferred by blacks. It sends the message that Congress wants to save lives, but not everyone's

 

[Phoenix]

This is why I am against this race-based kind of legislating. The NBC may think that it's doing something positive, when in reality, they are just creating a precedent.

Should we ban ham hock and neck bones? Because these are foods that African Americans eat at higher proportions, and banning them could help reduce obesity in our community? (I understand that this isn't a 1:1 comparison, just saying, what the hell kind of shit is this?)

Well to be perfectly honest, maybe we should. We penalize the shit out of smokers yet we allow without question or penalty a whole lot of other behaviors. I hate smokers/smoking, but when you really look at it they are getting a raw deal when people who drink themselves stupid or eat a cow per meal and never exercise get off scott free. Maybe it IS time we considered some of this. I mean ham hocks and neck bones is a more debatable category, but one of the flaws of our health care system and of all of the proposed universal health care systems is that they don't actually require people to - get healthy as a function of the benefit they are receiving.

 

[kame-sennin]

And the article makes it seem as though this is only the case because the NBC is trying to force their race-based objectives into the bill.

I'm not going to get into a debate about what a cigarette flavor is, I am concerned about the implications of what the NBC is doing.

The NBC aren't the only ones against this. I actually heard about this because Nader finds the menthol exception to be racist.

 

[PusherT]

When I get a Swish I like to open it up and put my weed in it. Phillies, Swish etc are really easy to roll and you get a taste of fruit when smoking the mary jane

 

[Kitschkraft]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The ban on menthols does not target blacks - anyone can smoke menthols, and blacks can smoke any type of cigarette. What the ban does is prevent the cigarette companies from targeting blacks because they know they tend to prefer menthols. And it's no different from protecting young people by banning flavored cigarettes, which this law will do. The purpose of the flavor ban is to prevent the cigarette companies from unfairly targeting specific groups, the only racist thing going on is leaving blacks out of the groups that would be protected.

Legislating for children is, was, and always will be seen as differently from legislating to protect grown ass black men and women. I just can't see the comparison.

You want to ban bubblegum and chocolate cigarettes because they are targeting children? Alright, I'll give you that. But, to just turn around and say "Don't forget about the blacks and menthol's" is frankly, rather condescending.

Once again, why not just get rid of cigarettes?

Edit : Just to add to this, on a side note, I hate the "well, technically, it's not directed at black people, just things that black people do" argument. Honestly, I hear this shit in regards to everything from clothing bans to money being directed at certain school districts, and now to cigarette brands...it's bullshit. Everyone knows who it's targeting, everyone knows whose going to be most affected. If we are going to fall back on the technicalities of it then why even discuss it at all? This isn't directed at you as much as it's me just venting a little bit on having to come across this on nearly every single fucking issue. There is no one behavior that is absolutely tied to blacks, nor one opinion, way of life, or anything else, if you ban something, it is bound to affect at least a small minority of every single ethnic group in America. However, to fall back on the "it doesn't mention black specifically" thing every.single.time is fucking sickening. There is places in America where black women are disallowed from wearing their hair naturally or in traditionally black styles. When the obvious racism of this policy is brought up to these employers, they always fall back on the "Well, it's not racist, because white women have to wear their hair straight as well"...fucking sickening.

Exactly (that part probably should have been bolded in the OP). It seems kind of racist to ban all flavors of cigarettes EXCEPT the ones preferred by blacks. It sends the message that Congress wants to save lives, but not everyone's

Or, it could just send the message that grown ass whites understand the choice they make when they go out and buy a pack of Marlboro Reds, but them silly Negroes just can't be left to their own accord.

 

[lil smoke]

Well to be perfectly honest, maybe we should. We penalize the shit out of smokers yet we allow without question or penalty a whole lot of other behaviors. I hate smokers/smoking, but when you really look at it they are getting a raw deal when people who drink themselves stupid or eat a cow per meal and never exercise get off scott free. Maybe it IS time we considered some of this. I mean ham hocks and neck bones is a more debatable category, but one of the flaws of our health care system and of all of the proposed universal health care systems is that they don't actually require people to - get healthy as a function of the benefit they are receiving.

What about people who smoke casually? There are some people who can enjoy a cig everynow and then with a beer, and not become addicted. I don't like the all out ban. Tax is fine though.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Well to be perfectly honest, maybe we should. We penalize the shit out of smokers yet we allow without question or penalty a whole lot of other behaviors. I hate smokers/smoking, but when you really look at it they are getting a raw deal when people who drink themselves stupid or eat a cow per meal and never exercise get off scott free. Maybe it IS time we considered some of this. I mean ham hocks and neck bones is a more debatable category, but one of the flaws of our health care system and of all of the proposed universal health care systems is that they don't actually require people to - get healthy as a function of the benefit they are receiving.

Thats a whole other area. I mean, I did bring up the "nanny state" thing earlier, but I honestly am not trying to delve that deep into it. I was just being hypothetical.

But for the record, if they ban ham hocks, then these mutha fuckas better ban fattening pasta and shit as well! I'll be damned if my soul food gets attacked and other shit gets off.....

 

[joelseph]

The Partykid/Raver community is going to be pissed.

 

[Phoenix]

What about people who smoke casually? There are some people who can enjoy a cig everynow and then with a beer, and not become addicted. I don't like the all out ban. Tax is fine though.

You get penalized the same whether you smoke 1 a day or 20. The form says quite simply "have you smoked or used tobacco products blah blah blah" and its a yes/no question.

 

[lil smoke]

You get penalized the same whether you smoke 1 a day or 20. The form says quite simply "have you smoked or used tobacco products blah blah blah" and its a yes/no question.

I always say "no".

 

[kame-sennin]

Or, it could just send the message that grown ass whites understand the choice they make when they go out and buy a pack of Marlboro Reds, but them silly Negroes just can't be left to their own accord.

I disagree. Flavored cigarettes make smoking more palatable to anyone and everyone. It makes no sense to ban all flavors except menthols when we know that menthols are preferred disproportionately by a specific group.