Basically because 81% of menthol users are black. That community’s smokers complained, so menthols remain the exception… here and here alone.
Not aided by the likes of Al Sharpton treating efforts to close this loophole as if that’s a targeted attack on black smokers. Same as it ever was: loss of privilege feels like persecution.
Technically correct - the best kind of correct - but the point is the same. There’s a close association between the product and the group, and the group votes, so there’s a lingering exception.
However, the very next paragraph seems to balance things in the other direction:
People who smoke menthol cigarettes make more attempts to quit smoking than those who smoke non-menthol cigarettes. However, the proportion of people who tried and succeeded in quitting non-menthol cigarettes is greater than the proportion of people who have tried and succeeded in quitting menthol cigarettes. This could be due to a number of factors, including the way in which menthol enhances the effects of nicotine in the brain. African American people who smoke menthol cigarettes may be even less successful in quitting than other population groups. Black or African American people can face barriers when trying to find and use proven quit smoking treatments. Also, the conditions in which non-Hispanic Black people live, learn, work and play may make it harder to quit.
The point remains the same: banning menthol cigarettes does impact Black people more than White people. In a positive way. Reading further (I won’t quote the rest, there’s a lot), it’s clear that White people (men in particular) are the least likely to smoke menthols, so banning menthols literally helps everyone else more.
Basically because 81% of menthol users are black. That community’s smokers complained, so menthols remain the exception… here and here alone.
Not aided by the likes of Al Sharpton treating efforts to close this loophole as if that’s a targeted attack on black smokers. Same as it ever was: loss of privilege feels like persecution.
That’s not true.
Technically correct - the best kind of correct - but the point is the same. There’s a close association between the product and the group, and the group votes, so there’s a lingering exception.
It’s not “technically correct.” It’s just correct, and what you said was incorrect.
Interestingly, a slightly higher percentage of White people smoke (12.9%) than do Black people (11.7%). And yes, 81% of Black smokers use menthols, while 34% of White smokers do. So the point is the same. Banning menthol cigarettes does impact Black people more than White people.
However, the very next paragraph seems to balance things in the other direction:
The point remains the same: banning menthol cigarettes does impact Black people more than White people. In a positive way. Reading further (I won’t quote the rest, there’s a lot), it’s clear that White people (men in particular) are the least likely to smoke menthols, so banning menthols literally helps everyone else more.
… it’s someone else’s fumbled statistic. Don’t try crawling down my throat about agreement on a correction.
Well no shit. Smoking is bad, actually. I am only describing the political history of this exception.