Menthol cigarette ban delayed due to "immense" feedback, Biden administration says - CBS News

tal@lemmy.today to News@lemmy.world – 141 points – Menthol cigarette ban delayed due to "immense" feedback, Biden administration says
cbsnews.com

The Biden administration said Friday it would again delay a decision on a regulation aiming to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes, citing the "historic attention" and "immense amount of feedback" on the controversial proposal by the Food and Drug Administration. 

"This rule has garnered historic attention and the public comment period has yielded an immense amount of feedback, including from various elements of the civil rights and criminal justice movement," Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

52

Can the same be used to make cannabis legal as many many groups have been asking too? Feels like a double standard especially given the low health risk of cannabis.

I am not a fan of banning things, but I think we all have our exceptions. I guess that makes us all hypocrites.

Cigs I'm torn on, while I think that if someone wants to do it regardless of if it kills them, I think that's fine. But on the other hand, the chance to spare a new generation of the statistical amount of pain it will cause on seemingly random users.

(SciFi brain kicks in) And what if a cure for all cancers, heart conditions, etc, a world where most diseases were cured, then this talk would have to be revisited.

Back to reality, a world where cancer is often terminal. In that world, where we live, I like the idea of a law like, after X year, people under Y age cannot buy cigs. You can insert your own X and Y, I'm not debating that. I just think that eventually, it would be a long term positive thing for humanity to choose values for X and Y.

Nothing should be banned is just makes for an unregulated thus unsafe market for consumers.

That said this is some real nickle and dime kinda shit for the constituents isn't it? Can we line up a vote on healthcare or more student loan relief. I don't really give a fuck about cigarettes.

True, the lobby must not want that for some reason?
What is the lobby that stops healthcare and student loan stuff? I actually don't know who is behind either.
It's so brazenly corrupt how the government ignores democracy when it's inconvenient.

I'm done with smokers. Done. My patio is covered in cigarette butts because of jackasses who think it's acceptable to toss butts out of windows. On the ground, etc. what other group just walks around, finishes their product and tosses the refuse on the ground? I'm sick of smokers, and at the vet least I think they should pay a premium for healthcare since I'm in a universal healthcare nation

The point is that they aren’t banning cigarettes but are banning things that make cigarettes more appealing to consume. You could smoke a non menthol.

Devil’s Advocate- What is the benefit of cigarettes other than satisfying an already established addiction? Alcohol aids socialization, marijuana has countless benefits, even fentanyl is an effective painkiller. Keep in mind, nicotine can be taken without cigarettes.

I’m not for governmental control or banning myself, but it’s an argument that I’ve heard that I find rather compelling.

I think nicotine has positive affects staving off dementia? I can't recall where I heard that or if it's true so know that I have low confidence in this. But nicotine itself, through patches, "snus", or other "non-cigarette" consumption methods that are less destructive, should be permitted.

I see no problem with people having a chemical dependency on nicotine if they choose it.

The method of imbibing is the only part I'm focused on because inhalation of tobacco/menthol products causes so much harm, and the product can still be enjoyed without that method of imbibing.

If someone wants to assemble their own menthol cigs, like how people brew/distill their own alcohol.. I suppose that is fine also.

I keep going in circles on this, I'm fairly conflicted and the more I think about it the more I realize how hard this is. In reality we want to ban a method od consumption, not the chemical itself.

Right. Nicotine has benefits, but it can be taken independently of smoking. The rest of the cigarette is carcinogenic.

I just think it needs to be fair. If you're going to ban people from imbibing cannabis, you should also ban them from imbibing tobacco. Tobacco is far more dangerous and addictive.

True, I actually went to make a comparison between nicotine and thc. I was going to focus on the differences between them, and when I went to write that I realized I mostly viewed them identically in my head, and I am pro-cannabis. So even though I don't like nicotine, in order to be consistent I must change my views to avoid bias, since I am pro-cannabis it stands that I should be pro-nicotine as well.

Too bad the nicotine industry doesn't extend that grace to the cannabis industry. "Hold on, let me spend a decade attempting to acquire monopolistic rights to the thc industry.. okay done.. now you can legalize it!"

If we didn't live in extremely corrupt times, it would be legal by now and the market would be rich with competiton. But nope, competiton only applies to new entrants into the market, the old established players will bind the hands of the government as long as possible to avoid any upstarts gaining traction in any industry similar to existing industries.

It's so transparent. So much for capitalism. Yet another reason to be anti-capitalist, the capitalists at the top redefine the rules once at the top, which waves big red flags that the authors of capitalism warned us about.

  1. Capitalism cannot function where monopolies exist.
  2. Capitalism cannot function as a system if participation is required

Both are true in our world, so the founders of capitalism would say that our system is not functionally capitalist. More of a plutocracy.

Open to corrections as I'm not an expert on economic systems.

(Star wars anikin and pademe meme)

"We react to massive negative feedback!"

"So you can stop Israeli aid now? Right?"

Meh. I smoked menthols for 20 years. They're awful and should be banned.

Great, in a country where smoking rates have steadily declined across all major demographic groups since the 70's, this is the kind of legislation we are worrying about.

Forget about actually pressing issues like the crushing student debt and college costs, general consumer debt, soaring medical costs, soaring housing costs, homelessness in major cities, the genocide in Palestine, the growing environmental crisis, the erosion of civil liberties and labor rights... But we gotta talk about banning Menthol cigarettes...

You know they can work on more than one thing at once, right? And the administration has more control over some things than others.

You don't have unlimited political capital. This shit pisses people off and that costs you votes. Pick and choose a lane that matters instead of this worthless intrusion and grandstanding.

Can they though? Hows this congresses track record on passing bills in a timely manner?

Congress is actually the perfect example. Most of the time spent on a bill is just waiting. If they didn't work on multiple bills at the same time, it would be even slower.

This looks like an example of relative privation. There's no way for us to all agree on what's a "good" cause. There are so many things people fight for, so many wrongs to right. We'll never agree on the one that's the worst, and if that's the only metric we use for problem solving - that we solve the worst problem we can, and only that problem, we'll end up spending our time trying to solve the problem of what problem to solve and never actually do anything.

The reality is that we can work on many things at once. We can push something that will have a decent impact, such as attempting to cut cigarette consumption, while ALSO working on homelessness, famine, fascism, etc.

I'll happily engage with you on why banning cigarettes may not be a good idea, but it's not because we could be better spending our time on other "more important" matters.

Enacting legislation requires time and resources, it isn't a cost-free activity. If you are spending those resources on one thing, you are reducing the ability to use them on other things, so you have to be strategic.

Banning menthol cigs is a very bad use of those resources. Consumers in general hate bans. If those bans aren't universal, they just create resentment in the population and incentives for people to create alternatives that in many cases are just as bad or worse.

In an election year where the Democratic party already is not in a strong position, it is idiotic to waste precious resources pushing for a ban on menthol cigs.

The utilitarian argument doesn't work; smoking rates across demographics have been steadily declining for decades. And menthol cigs are not drastically more addictive or dangerous than any other cigarettes.

The popular demand argument doesn't work either, because there aren't large swaths of the voter base that are calling for menthol cigs to be banned.

The FDA literally cannot change the cost of college or medical services. They are not allowed to.

1 more...

.

Prohibition does not work.

yes, that is their point

What? The person he's talking to is literally promoting prohibition. All substances should be legal and regulated.

I'd have several friends still alive if the drugs they bought were from a safe verified source.

no they're arguing that companies should not be allowed to intentionally make addicting products. akin to the difference between the caffeine found in coffee vs if a company started selling pure caffeine powder

Where are the protests in colleges against this? I've never seen or heard of one, so what is this tomfoolery? Quit your lying Jack, and stop sending arms to Israel

Edit: Sorry, forgot the /s

Nanny state. This type of shit is why fascist pick up steam.

Yep. As we all know the EU & UK both became a fascist hellhole after they... *checks notes* banned menthol cigarettes..?

Shit Americans Say™