Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 372: Greene New Deal

(+) Yeah! (+)

HashtagSEP posted...

I mean, menthol cigarettes are objectively bad. There's literally no positive to them. They're an additive intended to make it easier

I mean, putting extra butter in mashed potatoes is objectively bad. Theres literally no positive to them. Theyre an additive invented to make them more addictive.

---

I'm okay with banning paula deen too fwiw

---

masterplum posted...

I mean, putting extra butter in mashed potatoes is objectively bad. Theres literally no positive to them. Theyre an additive invented to make them more addictive.

This isnt adding butter to mashed potatoes.

This is adding a small amount of mashed potatoes to butter. Poisoned butter.

Can we make sure Tony doesn't make the next topic please.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

This isnt adding butter to mashed potatoes.

This is adding a small amount of mashed potatoes to butter. Poisoned butter.

Yum

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Does Tony somehow not realize that minorities can still buy cigarettes like everyone else here?

ok so it doesn't actually disproportionately help Black people then?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

ok so it doesn't actually disproportionately help Black people then?

I'm talking his mask mandate comparison.

Leafeon13N posted...

This isnt adding butter to mashed potatoes.

This is adding a small amount of mashed potatoes to butter. Poisoned butter.

Great point. On a similar note, we should go ahead and ban all alcoholic drinks except for 190-proof grain alcohol.
---

Leafeon13N posted...

I'm talking his mask mandate comparison.

The mask mandate comparison I had to make because you compared what I said to being anti-mask??

Also if minorities can just buy non menthol cigarettes, then what is the point of targeting the cigarettes that literally 80+% of black people buy and not the others?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Banning sales creates contraband, contraband creates a black market. It's not gonna be the cigarette companies taking the criminal penalties here! Tony's comparison to prohibition is pretty accurate.

You are massively underestimating the totality of the criminalization of alcohol at the time if you think this is anywhere close to being Prohibition.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also if minorities can just buy non menthol cigarettes, then what is the point of targeting the cigarettes that literally 80+% of black people buy and not the others?

You know who else liked universal day care?

---

All Im asking for is people to give a genuine defense of the position that A) banning menthol cigarettes will reduce cigarette smoking in a measurable way and B) Wont increase police scrutiny of black smokers

Im not even asking you to research it, Im just asking for someone to give a real position rather than Wow Tony so crazy, which I find to be to really unreasonable.

---

kevwaffles posted...

You are massively underestimating the totality of the criminalization of alcohol at the time if you think this is anywhere close to being Prohibition.

No? Similar in structure, not scale.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Nope.

Unlike alcohol cigarettes have direct medical effect on people in your vicinity.

Should be illegal.

It is illegal in the overwhelming majority of places where anyone else is around you. Outside of the privacy of your home or designated smoking areas, it is heavily restricted where you can smoke.

on the other hand, someone drinking alcohol could hit me with their car, etc. not sure how one is more dangerous, and its absolutely true what tony is saying about the fact that people like eric garner will suffer from this. Its actually legitimately baffling that anyone thinks the Biden administration has an interest in helping minorities given his extensive record of criminalizing things that disproportionately affect minorities and lock them up while his own son suffers no consequences for his own drug problems.

and the stuff about spinning this as helping is just ridiculous. Yeah thats what the us government is most notable for, looking out for the health of minorities whose communities it purposefully flooded with drugs and made sentencing disparities between the drugs in those communities and their own. Definitely always looking out for them!

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Can we make sure Tony doesn't make the next topic please.

Like this? Youre really gonna block me again because I believe theres a more effective and less racist position of ban all cigarettes and not just the ones that have 80%+ black users?

Really? Come on, guys.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The mask mandate comparison I had to make because you compared what I said to being anti-mask??

Also if minorities can just buy non menthol cigarettes, then what is the point of targeting the cigarettes that literally 80+% of black people buy and not the others?

You took it the wrong way and made an even dumber argument.

The antimask argument i was referring to was the idea that we dont need mask mandates because people will choose to wear maskson their own.

Then you went and made some weird proportional argument that is even worse.

Yeah banning menthols is pretty messed up. It's like a course in how to send a clear message without looking like you're trying to send a message.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

All Im asking for is people to give a genuine defense of the position that A) banning menthol cigarettes will reduce cigarette smoking in a measurable way

Again, not really trying to insert myself too deeply into this, but isn't another disproportionately affected demographic of this proposed ban young adults? If that suggests it's an attractive entry point to smoking, then removing it could have that effect.

---

I already had you blocked and only unblocked you because you made this topic.

Nothing has convinced me to stick with it thus far. This argument is really swaying the needle.

---

kevwaffles posted...

It's amazing how some of the staunchest leftists in this topic start sounding like libertarian poster children the second the government restricts something they don't want them to.

it's almost like you can have both leftist and libertarian beliefs

---

Leafeon13N posted...

You took it the wrong way and made an even dumber argument.

The antimask argument i was referring to was the idea that we dont need mask mandates because people will choose to wear maskson their own.

Then you went and made some weird proportional argument that is even worse.

Where was I making an argument equivalent to this?

I said ban all or none because of the efficacy/policing, I was not in any way saying people would stop smoking on their own?

---

NFUN posted...

it's almost like you can have both leftist and libertarian beliefs

And libertarian beliefs typically require an amount of willful ignorance that should be called out.

NFUN posted...

kevwaffles posted...

It's amazing how some of the staunchest leftists in this topic start sounding like libertarian poster children the second the government restricts something they don't want them to.

it's almost like you can have both leftist and libertarian beliefs

Sure, but the people I was jabbing at never act like this level of nuance is possible while sounding like caricatures they would normally rail against here
---

xp1337 posted...

Again, not really trying to insert myself too deeply into this, but isn't another disproportionately affected demographic of this proposed ban young adults? If that suggests it's an attractive entry point to smoking, then removing it could have that effect.

I definitely agree that when it comes to young smokers, the majority of them ARE menthol users.

But theyre also the smallest (and fastest shrinking) group of users, as some not-scientific googling shows the majority (like 95%) of nicotine-using youth get it via vaping.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

And libertarian beliefs typically require an amount of willful ignorance that should be called out.

kevwaffles posted...

Sure, but the people I was jabbing at never act like this level of nuance is possible while sounding like caricatures they would normally rail against here

You guys are literally trolling, say sike rn.

---

xp1337 posted...

Again, not really trying to insert myself too deeply into this, but isn't another disproportionately affected demographic of this proposed ban young adults? If that suggests it's an attractive entry point to smoking, then removing it could have that effect.

But all cigarettes are already illegal for young adults! The even raised the legal age to 21. And uh...if 21 year olds want to buy menthols they can go ahead. So does this actually do anything?

Looking up stats about the vaping bans, vape use with minors increased after the 2016 ban but fell in 2020 after the other restrictions. But I dunno if that's a good enough data point. So the data on that isn't clear and even without it I'm just opposed on principle to curbing most drug use by criminalizing it.

---

Do...do you think you come across as nuanced in these topics ever, Tony?

I mean most people don't, but you are especially extreme one way or another in everything you tackle here.
---

Most people who are anti cigarettes have been calling for this for a long time. Good law idea

---

kevwaffles posted...

Do...do you think you come across as nuanced in these topics ever, Tony?

I mean most people don't, but you are especially extreme one way or another in everything you tackle here.

Considering Im explaining my position and conceding related tangents (like what xp1337 said), and the entire response has been No this is to make black people healthy and it will do only that, yeah, my position is objectively more nuanced than your petty responses? Are you joking?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

But all cigarettes are already illegal for young adults! The even raised the legal age to 21. And uh...if 21 year olds want to buy menthols they can go ahead. So does this actually do anything?

I assume those in favor of this policy see it as a way of chipping away to get to the ultimate goal of banning cigarettes entirely, but seeing as infeasible at the current time (not even sure the FDA can do this unilaterally, heck I'm not even sure this proposed ban will stand to legal challenges, I know the ACLU has already come out against it) are electing to go for a smaller step in pursuit of it.

---

kevwaffles posted...

Do...do you think you come across as nuanced in these topics ever, Tony?

I mean most people don't, but you are especially extreme one way or another in everything you tackle here.

To continue on with this, can you even explain what my position is?

Youre not even trying to understand, you and Red somehow think my position is that I think cigarettes are good and people will quit when they want?!

I literally said they should ban all cigarettes if theyre going to ban any and Reds response was Tony MUST be a smoker!

You guys literally dont read my shit and then project against some strawman thats not even me.

---

Tony you are projecting arguments onto us and ignoring the things that have been said.

Leafeon13N posted...

Tony is definitely a smoker, right?

Leafeon13N posted...

Tony going full antimask mandate on us.

Leafeon13N posted...

The antimask argument i was referring to was the idea that we dont need mask mandates because people will choose to wear maskson their own.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Youre not even trying to understand, you and Red somehow think my position is that I think cigarettes are good and people will quit when they want?!

I literally said they should ban all cigarettes if theyre going to ban any and Reds response was Tony MUST be a smoker!

Leafeon13N posted...

Tony you are projecting arguments onto us and ignoring the things that have been said.

Gaslighting~!


---

I dont care if you support the law as long as you support laws like prohibiting bars from serving more than two drinks to the same person

---

xp1337 posted...

I assume those in favor of this policy see it as a way of chipping away to get to the ultimate goal of banning cigarettes entirely

Fair enough, I can see that. But I both think this is a bad goal and bad way to go about it. As fuming pointed out, if you want to regulate tobacco companies go for it but there are more effective ways to go about it.

---

So for people that are against a complete cigarette ban (Tony, I know this isn't you, don't worry), do you just oppose any government oversight/regulation whatsoever? Like, if your stance is "Let people do whatever the fuck they want" about cigarettes, then it seems inconsistent to want them to do pretty much anything else, like ban guns, enact environmental regulations, provide healthcare, and so on.

---

Tony, I think you've confused "abandon one talking point for another that might work better for me" with concession.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Fair enough, I can see that. But I both think this is a bad goal and bad way to go about it. As fuming pointed out, if you want to regulate tobacco companies go for it but there are more effective ways to go about it.

There probably are. It's a big reason why I said I wasn't hard committed to either side in this argument.

I'm sympathetic to the goal of eliminating tobacco/nicotine cigarette smoking for public health reasons but I'm also very cognizant that is likely an unattainable goal in any practical sense (it just going underground/black market) and that even potentially well-intentioned efforts can have unintended side-effects (the disproportionate effects of this on minority communities; let's leave aside the matter of whether this was unintended or not.) I also don't have the head for delving into the necessary research and listening to voices I have some trust in to form an educated opinion.

Definitely think there's been some projecting some ill intent on Tony that wasn't there, but also I think some of the undercurrents Tony threw back at them like suggesting this was some "Oh, so you think black people can't help themselves and need the government to do so" on their part was uncalled for as well. =/

---

Also, I'm pretty sure many smokers have said tobacco should be banned, probably literally while smoking.

I'm not claiming you're one of those people, but it's not the craziest thing to imagine.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

So for people that are against a complete cigarette ban (Tony, I know this isn't you, don't worry), do you just oppose any government oversight/regulation whatsoever? Like, if your stance is "Let people do whatever the fuck they want" about cigarettes, then it seems inconsistent to want them to do pretty much anything else, like ban guns, enact environmental regulations, provide healthcare, and so on.

No, that's a preposterous strawman. I just don't think the societal ills of tobacco are worth punishing users and small-time sales over and we should judge laws accordingly.

The tobacco companies are a different question. But tobacco products themselves? The concept of menthol cigarettes? I've got no issue. So imo if you want to fight exploitative tobacco company practices you should want something much more targeted

---

kevwaffles posted...

Tony, I think you've confused "abandon one talking point for another that might work better for me" with concession.

Literally what are you talking about? Dude either put up or shut up. Youre trolling is so annoying, if you want to have a real discussion the quote function is right there.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-fda-menthol-cigarette-ban

xp1337 posted...

I know the ACLU has already come out against it) are electing to go for a smaller step in pursuit of it.

Oh weird, the ACLU agrees with me completely? Thats wild, who could have possibly seen the racial justice implications of passing laws (that have to be enforced) affecting mostly black people?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The concept of menthol cigarettes? I've got no issue.

So, just to be clear, you don't have an issue with the concept of menthol cigarettes, which is to make smoking easier so people are more likely to get addicted young instead of stopping early because of a negative experience?

I understand certain arguments against the ban, but to say you have no issue with the actual concept of them is insane to me.

---

We should completely ban weed too, am I right fellow leftists

---

The ACLU is capable of having bad positions. Who ever would have known.

Also, for the record, this isn't random. They did this because today was the last court ordered day the FDA had to respond to a 2013 petition to ban menthols, since they were sued over it because they didn't act on it sooner.

So this isn't the government just randomly deciding "We're doing this whether you like it or not." This is them literally acting on a petition from the people.

---

xp1337 posted...

I think some of the undercurrents Tony threw back at them like suggesting this was some "Oh, so you think black people can't help themselves and need the government to do so" on their part was uncalled for as well.

Tony is projecting criticisms of the administration's explanation (which I'm skeptical of and should know better) onto others (who don't know) but I actually do think it's a criticism worth pointing out and thinking about. Cause that's how Biden is justifying it and again I'm skeptical it'll even help at all.

---

Kenri posted...

We should completely ban weed too, am I right fellow leftists

One of the biggesr reasons to be pro weed is that they are less harmful than cigarettes. Taje your trash take elsewhere.

Tony, it's hard to highlight on Gameraven as in it literally only works sometimes when I boot it, and you're constantly nesting quotes that it's going to grab the whole thing and create a giant damn mess.

Not that I'm sure how calling out my posting habits is an acceptable thing for you to do by your standards.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Tony is projecting criticisms of the administration's explanation (which I'm skeptical of and should know better) onto others (who don't know) but I actually do think it's a criticism worth pointing out and thinking about. Cause that's how Biden is justifying it and again I'm skeptical it'll even help at all.

For the record, I made a jokingly strong comment, one that I assumed (incorrectly!) was SO strong people would get it, and like 10 posts later was accused by two people of being bafflingly against increasing the health of black people, lol.

Like, if it was also a joke thats FairPlay, but I have yet to see an argument that they DONT think it will materially, measurably, and undoubtably increase the health of black people, so I repeated it like oh shit, do you really believe that?

I mean if someone can explain to me their logic of why think they targeting basically only black people is fair or good that isnt for their own good, Ill gladly take it back.


---