The question is not a new one. It came up frequently in 2010, when the FDA was considering a similar ban. Though it eventually failed, that proposal “caused a rift among forces that advocate on behalf of blacks’ interests,” NPR contributor Deron Snyder wrote at the time. Groups like the NAACP and the African Tobacco Control Leadership council were supportive, saying it would reduce rampant health problems in the black community. Groups like the National Black Chamber of Commerce, however, saw the ban as a racially targeted infringement on black smokers’ freedom of choice. “Menthol simply is a taste preference preferred by African Americans and it should not be singled out for a ban,” the group’s co-founder Harry Alford said in 2011.
Snyder agreed. “Why would the government ban the cigarettes that I prefer, while the estimated 78 percent of non-Latino, white smokers who prefer non-mentholated cigarettes are allowed to keep on puffing?” he wrote, adding that a cigarette ban should not be applied unless all cigarettes were banned. Reason magazine made a similar argument in 2017, as several cities passed ordinances banning the sale of menthol products. “It is true that black smokers use menthol cigarettes at a greater rate than the average American smoker,” Christian Britschgi wrote. “But does that mean the proper anti-racist response is to crack down on menthol? Indeed, is it not perhaps a tiny bit discriminatory to prohibit a product primarily because of the race of the people buying it?”
[clip]
It’s true: Menthol cigarettes are disproportionately advertised in predominately black communities, and the ads in those communities are disproportionately directed at young people.
https://newrepublic.com/article/152262/racist-ban-menthol-cigarettesor-not-to
if your 'primary' group that purchases your product is Black Americans ... wouldn't that be where you advertise ?
you are not going to advertise the latest Ferrari or Königsberg in SE DC on a Metro Bus Stop
ban menthol smokes to 'protect' white kids
Snyder agreed. “Why would the government ban the cigarettes that I prefer, while the estimated 78 percent of non-Latino, white smokers who prefer non-mentholated cigarettes are allowed to keep on puffing?” he wrote, adding that a cigarette ban should not be applied unless all cigarettes were banned. Reason magazine made a similar argument in 2017, as several cities passed ordinances banning the sale of menthol products. “It is true that black smokers use menthol cigarettes at a greater rate than the average American smoker,” Christian Britschgi wrote. “But does that mean the proper anti-racist response is to crack down on menthol? Indeed, is it not perhaps a tiny bit discriminatory to prohibit a product primarily because of the race of the people buying it?”
[clip]
It’s true: Menthol cigarettes are disproportionately advertised in predominately black communities, and the ads in those communities are disproportionately directed at young people.
https://newrepublic.com/article/152262/racist-ban-menthol-cigarettesor-not-to
if your 'primary' group that purchases your product is Black Americans ... wouldn't that be where you advertise ?
you are not going to advertise the latest Ferrari or Königsberg in SE DC on a Metro Bus Stop
ban menthol smokes to 'protect' white kids
Last edited:
