From the article ...
So wait: what? In other words, this move could be construed as transphobic, too?
FDA to Ban Menthol in Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars
- Thread starter peregrinus
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I think some people are slightly misunderstanding the point/message of things and running with their own explanations like Jesse Owens.
@telescopes : I don’t think they are trying to say that English rules and grammar are wrong to be taught or need to “go away”, just that it’s wrong to cut someone off or discount them simply because they use an incorrect word or grammar structure. If someone says “There car needs repaired” , you understand what they mean, but a stick placed in ass doesn’t allow one to move on from that even though you perfectly understood what they meant. I’m guilty of that, too. It’s an excellent way to cut down and discredit those who either haven’t learned proper grammar or simply cannot. In the context of an English class I believe grammar has its place. They are simply saying not to get so hung up on ridiculous English “rules” that you cut down or ignore those who are unable to use them.
@telescopes : I don’t think they are trying to say that English rules and grammar are wrong to be taught or need to “go away”, just that it’s wrong to cut someone off or discount them simply because they use an incorrect word or grammar structure. If someone says “There car needs repaired” , you understand what they mean, but a stick placed in ass doesn’t allow one to move on from that even though you perfectly understood what they meant. I’m guilty of that, too. It’s an excellent way to cut down and discredit those who either haven’t learned proper grammar or simply cannot. In the context of an English class I believe grammar has its place. They are simply saying not to get so hung up on ridiculous English “rules” that you cut down or ignore those who are unable to use them.
Transphobic? They are using real numbers from their data.. saying a group of people use a product more than others isn’t “phobic” of anything.
You fellas must have received very high marks in debate. ?
I believe that what he is saying is that by designating certain groups as majority users of this product, that to outlaw that product, could be construed as being against the community of people who use the product. Not that menthol cigarettes are phobic.
The best argument I have heard was on the news this morning was that Civil Liberty groups are injecting into the dialog that if these menthol cigarettes are outlawed, then that is one more reason for police to target minority groups.
Or would it be “for” that community by protecting them from something that effects them at a greater rate?
I mean, I agree that it’s stupid... but the arguments running through this thread are mainly laughable at best.
I'm not saying any of this is "transphobic", or racist. All I mean is that, per the statement in the article - "the American Civil Liberties Union raised concerns a ban would disproportionately impact non-white communities" - if it is racist to target people of color like this by banning their preferred cigarette, then it is transphobic/homophobic as well (because supposedly they will be disproportionately affected by this ban since they apparently like flavored cigars or something).
Really I think all of this is ridiculous. The Left is eating its own.
I haven't heard this argument. Are you rooting for the elimination of menthols?
Once again, that statement does not have any weight to it. Anti-tobacco legislation is nonpartisan. Just as many Republicans I know are against tobacco consumption as liberals. In my state, the anti-smoking drive is completely conservative run.
I am not. I’m saying I don’t believe their argument.
Yes, I believe they think they are protecting those who have been effected by menthols at a greater rate. Which is supported by their real-world data.
Exactly. Just face it people... very few folks tolerate smoking of any kind, regardless of their political leaning.
Also, as shown by @smudgersmissingleg , someone will just come out with a workaround. Sprays, infusers, etc.
You are right, but I think it is a little more involved. When they calculate the impact on health costs, loss of work, and cost of regulation, they deem tobacco to be the largest drain on the overall system. I know, I know, none of us asked for any of that, but... “¯\_(ツ)_/¯ “
I don’t know about this. In my opinion, tobacco is just an easy target, and one that everyone expects will gain them support. I think if it was really, bottom line, about health in Americans, I can’t imagine tobacco would win top spot over McDonald’s, alcohol, etc.
Heart disease is the number one killer in America, and (I believe) fast food and the crap the average American eats has more to do with that than any tobacco consumption.
Yeah - Caffeine, alcohol and diet of all years/makes/models of people I suspect is a wider spread issue for health. That also means taking on all of society if you are throwing money at trying to ban something for something's sake.
Anyone around NYC will remember the great Soda ban and how that went - Sugary drinks portion cap rule - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule
Anyone around NYC will remember the great Soda ban and how that went - Sugary drinks portion cap rule - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule
Hey, I'm just saying what I hear "them" saying. This was one of Mitch McConnel's talking points also. I didn't say it was right, just saying that's their excuses.
I get that, I just dont put much stock in what they say. Actions speak louder than words and such
- Status