NAACP vs ACLU

In 1924, Ohioan Lloyd "Spud" Hughes filed a patent application for his original technique of treating tobacco with menthol, creating a cigarette that was "cooling and soothing to irritated membranes" while being allegedly "absolutely non-injurious" and "pleasant to the taste." A century later, his invention having become immensely popular among African American smokers, the menthol cigarette is on the verge of being completely prohibited throughout the United States.

Advocacy groups are applying renewed pressure on the Biden administration to institute a nationwide ban. "The predatory marketing of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products must be stopped and we should all recognize this as a social justice issue, and one that disproportionately impacts youth and communities of color," reads a letter signed by groups including the NAACP and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has until April 29 to respond to a lawsuit seeking a menthol ban.

It's not surprising that health groups want menthol cigarettes taken off the market. The more interesting subject is how the public health case against menthol collides with concerns about the policing of black communities, placing progressives in the uncomfortable position of endorsing a new form of drug prohibition. Is the cause of social justice truly served by outlawing a product precisely because of its popularity with African Americans?

The question has divided civil liberties and civil rights groups, with organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and Al Sharpton's National Action Network voicing opposition to menthol bans. "Any prohibition on menthol and flavored tobacco products promises continued over-criminalization and mass incarceration of people of color," they warned in a letter to Congress last year.

https://reason.com/2021/04/26/a-ban-on-menthol-cigarettes-will-lead-to-more-confrontations-between-black-people-and-police/


When I read the reason for the menthol ban, I frankly thought it was paternalistic, patronizing and honestly, racist.

I guess this is where we are now.

Such a big post, for such a small point. You're trying to save menthol cigarettes? Do you smoke? Menthols?

I guess cigarette bans are not very interesting..

Get off the trivial matter of cigarettes.  What you really want to talk about is:

Maddog wrote:When I read the reason for the menthol ban, I frankly thought it was paternalistic, patronizing and honestly, racist.

What offends us about "paternalistic patronizing?"  The root terms scream out at us: It is the loss of agency that comes with a law that regulates for us.

But are we opposing the loss of agency, or simply promoting the use of tobacco...or greater, simply protecting private interests and capitalism’s authority to abuse addiction?

The principle of law is that generalizations must be made, in order to effect public protections, or regulations.  We already know that tobacco is bad for us (cancer), but what is more, it is addictive.  One of the hardest addictions to quit is nicotine.  The theory is that regulating use of a harmful substance is appropriate for government to do, and regulating an enhancement that has been marketed to a specific sub-section. is simply furthering the goal of that protection.

Is that paternalistic?  Is that patronizing?  To an extent, any public protection that does its job is paternalistic and patronizing.  That’s the name of the game.  However, in this instance it is particularly warranted.

In the nineteenth century we learned that capitalistic predators were marketing substances that effectively canceled agency itself…that is, users were being deprived of their own independent choice by becoming addicted.  Among such substances were nicotine, alcohol and opium.  We nicked in the bud Laudanum and Coca-Cola (originally an opiate-based product).  We got a handle on alcohol.  And we are currently going through regulating tobacco.  It’s particularly hard because tobacco is grown in the American south, and those interests have a lobbying head-start.  (Did you know that Duke University was founded and supported by the Duke Tobacco Co.?)

So, I think when a commercial product has the effect of taking away our own agency, it’s a bit duplicitous to say we are offended by the loss of agency that comes with regulation.  As for racism, I don't see the point.

It's being done to protect members of one race, from their own poor decisions.

"The predatory marketing of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products must be stopped and we should all recognize this as a social justice issue, and one that disproportionately impacts youth and communities of color,"

Maddog wrote:It's being done to protect members of one race, from their own poor decisions.

Yes, they are hitting the center of the problem, wherever it appears.  They would do the same for Asians, whites or native Americans, wherever the big money is preying on addiction of a particular population.

Regulations are public protections, just like private property laws are public protections.  We focus where needed the most.

If someone were dumping trash on a certain piece of private property, it would make sense to concentrate on that place and catch whoever is doing it.

This regulation is focusing on the marketplace, whereupon poison-producing manufacturers are dumping their poisonous trash.  And, it's hardly an excessive infringement on freedom, when addiction is the very essence of transgression on freedom.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's being done to protect members of one race, from their own poor decisions.

Yes, they are hitting the center of the problem, wherever it appears.  They would do the same for Asians, whites or native Americans, wherever the big money is preying on addiction of a particular population.

Regulations are public protections, just like private property laws are public protections.  We focus where needed the most.

If someone were dumping trash on a certain piece of private property, it would make sense to concentrate on that place and catch whoever is doing it.

This regulation is focusing on the marketplace, whereupon poison-producing manufacturers are dumping their poisonous trash.  And, it's hardly an excessive infringement on freedom, when addiction is the very essence of transgression on freedom.

So you are comparing black folks to property?

Weird.

That's a heckle response: it makes no contribution to the discussion, but tries to introduce an inane juxtaposition of subjects for purposes of confusion.  There is something about reasonable discussion that frightens you, such that you prefer the confusion.  It would be better to pay attention to the subject, as such nonsense only works on southerners or other half-wits.

Back on subject: I am comparing one area of the law to another—property protection, to health and welfare--to point up how consistently the law approaches its function.  To wit: Government protects health and welfare every bit as much as it protects property.  And, it does so in very much the same way: it doesn’t allow grifters to use deception or unseen hooks to take value away from unsuspecting victims.

So you are comparing black folks to property?

Weird.

Your thread title makes my brain hurt.

This is what libertarians in America do; they sieze upon some weird little issue and make misleading memes about it and post them everywhere like they've got something interesting to say.

Ben Reilly wrote:This is what libertarians in America do; they sieze upon some weird little issue and make misleading memes about it and post them everywhere like they've got something interesting to say.

I hate to say I told you so, but that is the deficiency of the RW, not just libertarians. While Democrats deal in intelligent, rational thinking, as applied to real problems, RW'ers swim in clichés, jingles and platitudes.

Not to become a cheerleader, but I totally understand MD's response--coming from where he is ideologically. That is the (limited) depth to which RW'ers go to think things through.

I wasn't going to comment, but I see you see it too.

Ben Reilly wrote:This is what libertarians in America do; they sieze upon some weird little issue and make misleading memes about it and post them everywhere like they've got something interesting to say.

Is the ACLU libertarian organization?

No doubt libertarians make the best memes. It's well known that we win the meme wars..

eddie wrote:Your thread title makes my brain hurt.

A lot of.letters.

But the point is simple. Should the government ban a certain product because it's used in overwhelming numbers by one race, for the protection of that race.

The NAACP says yes.

The ACLU thinks it will be problematic.

Not a meme.

Accurate?

A jingle is hardly an analysis.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Your thread title makes my brain hurt.

A lot of.letters.  

But the point is simple. Should the government ban a certain product because it's used in overwhelming numbers by one race, for the protection of that race.

The NAACP says yes.

The ACLU thinks it will be problematic.  

People should be free to do whatever the fuck they want if it’s not hurting anyone else. As long as the information is available to them...then it’s their choice.

Smoking causes cancer. That qualifies for "hurt anyone".

Original Quill wrote:Smoking causes cancer.  That qualifies for "hurt anyone".

I take your point but you can’t smoke inside anywhere, anymore.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

A lot of.letters.  

But the point is simple. Should the government ban a certain product because it's used in overwhelming numbers by one race, for the protection of that race.

The NAACP says yes.

The ACLU thinks it will be problematic.  

People should be free to do whatever the fuck they want if it’s not hurting anyone else. As long as the information is available to them...then it’s their choice.

This is more complicated. Smoking isn't being banned, nor are cigarettes. Just a certain kind of cigarettes because they appeal to black people.

Folks can smoke all of the Marlboros that they want.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

A lot of.letters.  

But the point is simple. Should the government ban a certain product because it's used in overwhelming numbers by one race, for the protection of that race.

The NAACP says yes.

The ACLU thinks it will be problematic.  

People should be free to do whatever the fuck they want if it’s not hurting anyone else. As long as the information is available to them...then it’s their choice.

This is more complicated. Smoking isn't being banned, nor are cigarettes. Just a certain kind of cigarettes because they appeal to black people.  

Folks can smoke all of the Marlboros that they want.  

I know. My comment still stands. I’m all for freedom of choice and speech.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Smoking causes cancer.  That qualifies for "hurt anyone".

I take your point but you can’t smoke inside anywhere, anymore.

After you identify smoking as the killer, you go about identifying and attacking pockets where smoking succeeds by making incursions.  Smoking inside, where all are subjected to the poison, is one such incursion that is best done away with.  Another is flavors that are attracted by a sizable enough population, to have a killer impact.

You don't win a war by ignoring the enemy.  The enemy is the tobacco, not the smoker.  As Sun Tzu says in the Art of War: “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.”

Like I said...freedom to do what you want - as long as all the information is available to you.

"The question has divided civil liberties and civil rights groups, with organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and Al Sharpton's National Action Network voicing opposition to menthol bans. "Any prohibition on menthol and flavored tobacco products promises continued over-criminalization and mass incarceration of people of color," they warned in a letter to Congress last year."

eddie wrote:Like I said...freedom to do what you want - as long as all the information is available to you.

That's the catch, isn't it? For most people the information isn't available or distributed.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Like I said...freedom to do what you want - as long as all the information is available to you.

That's the catch, isn't it?  For most people the information isn't available or distributed.

Well it is now.

And really, you could make that comment about a lot of things we consume.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the catch, isn't it?  For most people the information isn't available or distributed.

Well it is now.

And really, you could make that comment about a lot of things we consume.

That's precisely why regulations (public protections) are so necessary.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the catch, isn't it?  For most people the information isn't available or distributed.

Well it is now.

And really, you could make that comment about a lot of things we consume.

Everyone knows cigs are bad for you. It's written on the package and Quill knows it.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well it is now.

And really, you could make that comment about a lot of things we consume.

Everyone knows cigs are bad for you. It's written on the package and Quill knows it.  

The problem with tobacco is addiction, not information.  Addiction is a physical lock…a much stronger pull than mere lack of information.  Since it is so insidious, every prohibition that can be taken with tobacco, should be.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well it is now.

And really, you could make that comment about a lot of things we consume.

Everyone knows cigs are bad for you. It's written on the package and Quill knows it.  

The problem with tobacco is addiction, not information.  Addiction is a physical lock…a much stronger pull than mere lack of information.  Since it is so insidious, every prohibition that can be taken with tobacco, should be.

Sugar is highly addictive. Alcohol too. Shall we ban those?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The problem with tobacco is addiction, not information.  Addiction is a physical lock…a much stronger pull than mere lack of information.  Since it is so insidious, every prohibition that can be taken with tobacco, should be.

Sugar is highly addictive. Alcohol too. Shall we ban those?

We've tried that.

It was a disaster, which is why the ACLU is against this.

Prohibition gets people killed.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The problem with tobacco is addiction, not information.  Addiction is a physical lock…a much stronger pull than mere lack of information.  Since it is so insidious, every prohibition that can be taken with tobacco, should be.

Sugar is highly addictive. Alcohol too. Shall we ban those?

We've tried that.

It was a disaster, which is why the ACLU is against this.  

Prohibition gets people killed.  

So prohibition doesn’t work then. We have gone in a full circle.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We've tried that.

It was a disaster, which is why the ACLU is against this.  

Prohibition gets people killed.  

So prohibition doesn’t work then. We have gone in a full circle.

Exactly. It's why ending the drug war would save lives.

Too many interactions between the cops and peaceful people.

It's why many groups want nothing to do with a law that will create black market cigarettes.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We've tried that.

It was a disaster, which is why the ACLU is against this.  

Prohibition gets people killed.  

So prohibition doesn’t work then. We have gone in a full circle.

Prohibition worked with Coca, Opiates, and derivatives.  Alcohol has controls...primarily age, time and place restrictions.  Tobacco is one of the most addictive (more than opiates), and dangerous habits—for smokers and non-smokers—and is posing a real problem.  Hence, the controls and the many advertisements.

The big problem with tobacco is environmental. Non-smokers despise the smell and the risks of breathing smoke, and make it a huge political problem.

You think we should live in a world where someone makes the decisions on what we can consume, based on what’s good for us?

eddie wrote:You think we should live in a world where someone makes the decisions on what we can consume, based on what’s good for us?

I think governments have a greater capacity to gather information, and develop and enforce public protections, than individuals. If the risk is informed, truly individual, and completely free, then it can be left to the individual. But if it's not informed, individual and free, it's a community issue.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:You think we should live in a world where someone makes the decisions on what we can consume, based on what’s good for us?

I think governments have a greater capacity to gather information, and develop and enforce public protections, than individuals.  If the risk is informed, truly individual, and completely free, then it can be left to the individual.  But if it's not informed, individual and free, it's a community issue.

I agree with that on the whole, Quill.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:You think we should live in a world where someone makes the decisions on what we can consume, based on what’s good for us?

I think governments have a greater capacity to gather information, and develop and enforce public protections, than individuals.  If the risk is informed, truly individual, and completely free, then it can be left to the individual.  But if it's not informed, individual and free, it's a community issue.

I agree with that on the whole, Quill.

Even Maddog should agree with that, since libertarians believe fraud is wrong, and selling a product to someone without telling them of any dangers that come with consuming it is definitely fraudulent.

But again, this isn't about something being unknowingly dangerous.

Its about banning a flavor of a dangerous product in order to protect a race that is perceived incapable of being allowed exposure to that flavor.

Its like switching reefer madness with menthol madness.

Maddog wrote:But again, this isn't about something being unknowingly dangerous.

Its about banning a flavor of a dangerous product in order to protect a race that is perceived incapable of being allowed exposure to that flavor.

Its like switching reefer madness with menthol madness.

I repeat...it's not just a flavor, it's an addiction. If the addiction reaches more people via the flavor, the path or means deserves to be eliminated.

If it's just the menthol they love, they can always sniff their deodorant sticks or shaving cream. That way, nobody is depriving anyone of anything.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:But again, this isn't about something being unknowingly dangerous.

Its about banning a flavor of a dangerous product in order to protect a race that is perceived incapable of being allowed exposure to that flavor.

Its like switching reefer madness with menthol madness.

I repeat...it's not just a flavor, it's an addiction.  If the addiction reaches more people via the flavor, the path or means deserves to be eliminated.

If it's just the menthol they love, they can always sniff their deodorant sticks or shaving cream.  That way, nobody is depriving anyone of anything.

Then ban the white man's choice of addiction too.

Do you not see any corollary here with the disastrous war on drugs?

Let's not start another stupid fucking war on a product.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I repeat...it's not just a flavor, it's an addiction.  If the addiction reaches more people via the flavor, the path or means deserves to be eliminated.

If it's just the menthol they love, they can always sniff their deodorant sticks or shaving cream.  That way, nobody is depriving anyone of anything.

Then ban the white man's choice of addiction too.

What do you have in mind? I'll consider anything that helps stop folks from killing themselves, color aside.

Maddog wrote:Do you not see any corollary here with the disastrous war on drugs?

Let's not start another stupid fucking war on a product.

What's wrong with wars on products? I would like to see guns banned. Polluting cars. OxyCotin. Cigarettes. Fentanyl. The list goes on of products by which fraudsters and grifters try to make money at public expense...the result of which is usually loss of production, minimally, or needless public burden, or finally, death.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Do you not see any corollary here with the disastrous war on drugs?

Let's not start another stupid fucking war on a product.

What's wrong with wars on products?  I would like to see guns banned.  Polluting cars.  OxyCotin.  Cigarettes.  Fentanyl.  The list goes on of products by which fraudsters and grifters try to make money at public expense...the result of which is usually loss of production, minimally, or needless public burden, or finally, death.

Ask all the victims of the drug war.

Hell, ask Eric Garner...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then ban the white man's choice of addiction too.

What do you have in mind?  I'll consider anything that helps stop folks from killing themselves, color aside.

Ban Marlboros, not just Salems.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What's wrong with wars on products?  I would like to see guns banned.  Polluting cars.  OxyCotin.  Cigarettes.  Fentanyl.  The list goes on of products by which fraudsters and grifters try to make money at public expense...the result of which is usually loss of production, minimally, or needless public burden, or finally, death.

Ask all the victims of the drug war.

Hell,  ask Eric Garner...

It's much deeper than mere incidents, and/or even police tactics. Eric Garner would never have died if NYC was really taking care of business.