NAACP vs ACLU

by Maddog Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:38 pm

First topic message reminder :

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. Rolling Eyes

by Maddog Mon May 03, 2021 12:21 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

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.

Wars on products have victims. Eric was one. Ever hear of blowback?

Why do you think the ALCU has problems with more policing?

by Original Quill Mon May 03, 2021 3:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

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.

Wars on products have victims. Eric was one. Ever hear of blowback?

Why do you think the ALCU has problems with more policing?

I think you've lost the plot.

by Maddog Mon May 03, 2021 4:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Wars on products have victims. Eric was one. Ever hear of blowback?

Why do you think the ALCU has problems with more policing?

I think you've lost the plot.

Why do you think the ALCU has problems with more policing?

by Original Quill Mon May 03, 2021 5:08 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I think you've lost the plot.

Why do you think the ALCU has problems with more policing?

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police

https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/reimagining-the-role-of-police/

by Maddog Mon May 03, 2021 6:17 pm

In regards to this story, why do you think the ALCU has problems with more policing?

by Original Quill Mon May 03, 2021 6:28 pm

I think the ACLU has common ground with blacks, as they (ACLU) represent causes that involve civil liberties.

I think the ACLU does sympathize with BLM. Undeterred, the police keep killing black men with no cause or justification, and that is a violation of civil liberties.

I don’t think menthol flavoring has anything to do with saving black lives, or civil liberties.

by Maddog Mon May 03, 2021 6:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:I think the ACLU has common ground with blacks, as they (ACLU) represent causes that involve civil liberties.

I think the ACLU does sympathize with BLM. Undeterred, the police keep killing black men with no cause or justification, and that is a violation of civil liberties.

I don’t think menthol flavoring has anything to do with saving black lives, or civil liberties.

So you think their position on this law is incorrect.?

by Maddog Mon May 03, 2021 6:52 pm

"Time and time again, we see encounters with police over minor offenses — for Daunte Wright it was expired tags, for George Floyd it was using a counterfeit bill, for Eric Garner it was selling loose cigarettes — result in a killing," ACLU senior legislative counsel Aamra Ahmad said in a statement. "There are serious concerns that the ban implemented by the Biden administration will eventually foster an underground market that is sure to trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color and prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction."

by Original Quill Mon May 03, 2021 7:00 pm

The ACLU appears to be caught in what is known as an antinomy: a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable.

Personally, I think any cause that rests upon championing flavor for cigarettes is frivolous, and not worth the effort. It's value to mankind is tenuous at best. As they are competing rights, I would side against cigarettes. The weight of the matter, and the tenuousness to civil rights, does not justify siding with cancer.

by Original Quill Mon May 03, 2021 7:09 pm

Maddog wrote:"Time and time again, we see encounters with police over minor offenses — for Daunte Wright it was expired tags, for George Floyd it was using a counterfeit bill, for Eric Garner it was selling loose cigarettes — result in a killing," ACLU senior legislative counsel Aamra Ahmad said in a statement. "There are serious concerns that the ban implemented by the Biden administration will eventually foster an underground market that is sure to trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color and prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction."

Again, tenuous. There is no necessary connection between these laws that pose a pretext for stops, and the taking of black lives. If you eliminate one, they will find another fictitious reason.

The favorite excuse for pulling over blacks in Texas is a broken tail light. How do you disprove it? But eliminating lights on automobiles seems a bit excessive.

As far as overzealous policing is concerned, I favor direct restructuring of the police agencies themselves.

by Maddog Mon May 03, 2021 7:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:"Time and time again, we see encounters with police over minor offenses — for Daunte Wright it was expired tags, for George Floyd it was using a counterfeit bill, for Eric Garner it was selling loose cigarettes — result in a killing," ACLU senior legislative counsel Aamra Ahmad said in a statement. "There are serious concerns that the ban implemented by the Biden administration will eventually foster an underground market that is sure to trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color and prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction."

Again, tenuous. There is no necessary connection between these laws that pose a pretext for stops, and the taking of black lives. If you eliminate one, they will find another fictitious reason.

The favorite excuse for pulling over blacks in Texas is a broken tail light. How do you disprove it? But eliminating lights on automobiles seems a bit excessive.

As far as overzealous policing is concerned, I favor direct restructuring of the police agencies themselves.

Lowering the number of interactions between police and the public will save lives. The ACLU knows this.

It's why the war on drugs is so problematic. When you criminalize things, you set up an adversarial position with the cops that often ends poorly for one or both sides.

by Original Quill Tue May 04, 2021 4:40 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Again, tenuous. There is no necessary connection between these laws that pose a pretext for stops, and the taking of black lives. If you eliminate one, they will find another fictitious reason.

The favorite excuse for pulling over blacks in Texas is a broken tail light. How do you disprove it? But eliminating lights on automobiles seems a bit excessive.

As far as overzealous policing is concerned, I favor direct restructuring of the police agencies themselves.

Lowering the number of interactions between police and the public will save lives.

So will creating impediments to tobacco smoking. Smoking is insidious for two reasons: 1) it causes cancer; and 2) it is addictive.

The first of these is obvious: Cancer kills. In studies, it was found that “there was a slightly positive association between smoking and any cancer in both men (HR = 1.07) and women (HR = 1.03). Smoking was further found to be positively associated with several cancers, such as liver cancer, bladder and kidney cancers, pancreas cancer, and lymphoma.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5915125/

The second reason is the addictive nature of smoking takes away the voluntariness, so necessary to consent and self-control. If we give away our ability to control our own lives—particularly to capitalists, for the sole purpose of making an element of our society wealthier—we take away freedom from arbitrary government, only to give it to a plutocracy.

On balance, there is greater loss of life with smoking.

Additionally, I question the correlation between suppression of tobacco use with police and loss of lives. You provide no numbers with which to substantiate the argument. More importantly, there is no logical reason why police behavior/violence might be linked to the specific crime to which police are tasked. Rather, it is much more apparent that police behavior/violence is linked to lack of training, or improper orientation of police agencies (that is another story).

by Maddog Tue May 04, 2021 5:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Lowering the number of interactions between police and the public will save lives.

So will creating impediments to tobacco smoking. Smoking is insidious for two reasons: 1) it causes cancer; and 2) it is addictive.

The first of these is obvious: Cancer kills. In studies, it was found that “there was a slightly positive association between smoking and any cancer in both men (HR = 1.07) and women (HR = 1.03). Smoking was further found to be positively associated with several cancers, such as liver cancer, bladder and kidney cancers, pancreas cancer, and lymphoma.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5915125/

The second reason is the addictive nature of smoking takes away the voluntariness, so necessary to consent and self-control. If we give away our ability to control our own lives—particularly to capitalists, for the sole purpose of making an element of our society wealthier—we take away freedom from arbitrary government, only to give it to a plutocracy.

On balance, there is greater loss of life with smoking.

Additionally, I question the correlation between suppression of tobacco use with police and loss of lives. You provide no numbers with which to substantiate the argument. More importantly, there is no logical reason why police behavior/violence might be linked to the specific crime to which police are tasked. Rather, it is much more apparent that police behavior/violence is linked to lack of training, or improper orientation of police agencies (that is another story).

The ACLU has explained it quite well.

Read the story.

by Original Quill Tue May 04, 2021 5:45 pm

Maddog wrote:The ACLU has explained it quite well.

Actually, they don't explain it well. Their outlook is quite myopic.

I think there is more to be gained by stopping smoking, especially since my BIL, after years of smoking, is dying of lung cancer right now. The ACLU is concerned about abstractions; misery and death are non-abstract.

Indeed, that's why I think BLM is quite real, but prohibition of 'fun-stuff' is relatively lite-weight.

by Maddog Tue May 04, 2021 7:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:The ACLU has explained it quite well.

Actually, they don't explain it well. Their outlook is quite myopic.

I think there is more to be gained by stopping smoking, especially since my BIL, after years of smoking, is dying of lung cancer right now. The ACLU is concerned about abstractions; misery and death are non-abstract.

Indeed, that's why I think BLM is quite real, but prohibition of 'fun-stuff' is relatively lite-weight.

Maybe its too complex for you. Rolling Eyes

by Maddog Tue May 04, 2021 7:20 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/banning-menthol-cigarettes-could-put-black-smokers-in-a-new-kind-of-danger/2021/05/03/70d4745e-ac3a-11eb-acd3-24b44a57093a_story.html

Another perspective from a POC.

I don't subscribe to the WP but what I can read spells it out pretty good.

by Original Quill Tue May 04, 2021 8:36 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Actually, they don't explain it well. Their outlook is quite myopic.

I think there is more to be gained by stopping smoking, especially since my BIL, after years of smoking, is dying of lung cancer right now. The ACLU is concerned about abstractions; misery and death are non-abstract.

Indeed, that's why I think BLM is quite real, but prohibition of 'fun-stuff' is relatively lite-weight.

Maybe its too complex for you.

What's complex about it. It's a simple antinomy. Go with what is more important.

by Original Quill Tue May 04, 2021 8:37 pm

Maddog wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/banning-menthol-cigarettes-could-put-black-smokers-in-a-new-kind-of-danger/2021/05/03/70d4745e-ac3a-11eb-acd3-24b44a57093a_story.html

Another perspective from a POC.

I don't subscribe to the WP but what I can read spells it out pretty good.

Meh...they chose which prong of the antinomy they think is important. I've chosen another, and given reasons why.

They've got some catching up to do.

by Maddog Tue May 04, 2021 8:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/banning-menthol-cigarettes-could-put-black-smokers-in-a-new-kind-of-danger/2021/05/03/70d4745e-ac3a-11eb-acd3-24b44a57093a_story.html

Another perspective from a POC.

I don't subscribe to the WP but what I can read spells it out pretty good.

Meh...they chose which prong of the antinomy they think is important. I've chosen another, and given reasons why.

They've got some catching up to do.

Nah, they know that lowering interactions lowers the number of bad interactions.

They know that criminilizing something that black people enjoy, will lead to more interactions with black people. That's never good, even if it's just an uneventful arrest.

by Original Quill Tue May 04, 2021 9:01 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Meh...they chose which prong of the antinomy they think is important. I've chosen another, and given reasons why.

They've got some catching up to do.

Nah, they know that lowering interactions lowers the number of bad interactions.

They know that criminilizing something that black people enjoy, will lead to more interactions with black people. That's never good, even if it's just an uneventful arrest.

But in a setting where there are competing interests, is flavored cigarettes the most important? How do you feel about preventing killing black people with cancer? Isn’t that a superior interest?

Besides, I'm not convinced that your causal chain is valid. Aren't you engaging in the expectation that blacks are prone to break the law? My experience has been that black people obey the law assiduously.

by Maddog Tue May 04, 2021 9:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Nah, they know that lowering interactions lowers the number of bad interactions.

They know that criminilizing something that black people enjoy, will lead to more interactions with black people. That's never good, even if it's just an uneventful arrest.

But in a setting where there are competing interests, is flavored cigarettes the most important? How do you feel about preventing killing black people with cancer? Isn’t that a superior interest?

Besides, I'm not convinced that your causal chain is valid. Aren't you engaging in the expectation that blacks are prone to break the law? My experience has been that black people obey the law assiduously.

Blacks are more prone to smoking menthol.

That's why the menthol ban was chosen. To target black smokers.

by Original Quill Tue May 04, 2021 9:27 pm

Menthol is less of an issue than cancer. Wink

by Maddog Tue May 04, 2021 9:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:Menthol is less of an issue than cancer.

Not in this case.

Menthol was targeted because blacks use it more.

Tobacco isn't targeted.

by Original Quill Wed May 05, 2021 2:20 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Menthol is less of an issue than cancer.

Not in this case.

Menthol was targeted because blacks use it more.

Tobacco isn't targeted.

Tobacco is targeted. See, "Tracing the racist tactics of the tobacco industry".

Truth Initive wrote:Tracing the racist tactics of the tobacco industry
Oct. 16, 2020

Big Tobacco has a long history of targeting the Black community with predatory marketing and its racist tactics continue today.

In a calling to end Big Tobacco’s racism, truth partnered with Black community members and activists to launch its latest campaign Read Between the Lies. Led and promoted by Black voices, the campaign includes videos of people reading and reacting to actual quotes from tobacco industry executives revealing the deliberate and exploitive ways they target the Black community.

These tactics have serious consequences. African Americans have higher death rates from tobacco-related causes compared to other racial and ethnic groups – with more than 39,000 dying from tobacco-related cancers each year. The health consequences are especially severe now as COVID-19, which is also disproportionately affecting Black Americans, can carry greater risk of severe illness for tobacco users.

The examples highlighted in Read Between the Lies underscore how aggressive, exploitive tobacco industry tactics targeting the Black community have spanned decades and continue today.

A documented strategy
"We don't smoke this shit, we just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the Black, and the stupid." That’s just one tobacco industry executive quote that can be found in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents library and is featured in Read Between the Lies.

Aggressively targeting groups – especially young people, African Americans and low-income populations – for the more than 1,300 people who die each day from tobacco use has long been central to the tobacco industry playbook. Big Tobacco has sponsored cultural events, targeted direct mail promotions and placed advertising in publications and venues that are popular with Black audiences.

Several studies have also found a greater number of tobacco advertisements and a larger presence of tobacco advertising in African American neighborhoods. For example, Truth Initiative researchers found that in predominantly Black neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. there were up to ten times more tobacco ads than in areas with fewer Black residents.

Making menthol black
As Read Between the Lies makes clear, it’s no accident that nearly 90% of African American smokers use menthol cigarettes, which are easier to smoke and harder to quit. Tobacco industry documents show that tobacco companies have a long history of specifically targeting African Americans with menthol cigarette advertising and promotions, including by sponsoring events like jazz and hip-hop festivals.

Menthol has been repeatedly exempted from legislation on flavored tobacco products, the result of massive tobacco industry lobbying efforts. Tobacco companies have made strategic financial contributions and worked to align themselves with Black leaders and politicians, and mounted huge opposition campaigns against local policy efforts to restrict menthol tobacco products.

[Watch “Black Lives / Black Lungs” a documentary by former Truth Initiative Youth Activism Fellow Lincoln Mondy that explores the strategic infiltration of menthol tobacco products into the Black community.]

Truth Initiative has long called for a nationwide comprehensive ban on all menthol tobacco products – which 117 jurisdictions in the U.S. currently have – and continues to conduct research and policy analysis to inform and advance these efforts.

Infiltrating schools
Top e-cigarette JUUL, which has driven the youth vaping epidemic and is partly owned by tobacco giant Altria, is following in the predatory footsteps of Big Tobacco. Read Between the Lies exposes how the company funded an after-school program which allowed them access to Black youth.

JUUL programs targeted children as young as those in third grade by funding summer camps, visiting schools and paying community and church groups to distribute their materials, according to documents and testimony from Congressional hearings about JUUL’s role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic.

https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/targeted-communities/tracing-racist-tactics-tobacco-industry

by Maddog Wed May 05, 2021 2:32 am

Well, I guess they can just market non menthol cigs to the black folks.

At least to the ones that aren't getting the contraband smokes.

by Original Quill Wed May 05, 2021 3:31 pm

Maddog wrote:Well, I guess they can just market non menthol cigs to the black folks.

At least to the ones that aren't getting the contraband smokes.

It's a step in the right direction. Twisted Evil

by Maddog Wed May 05, 2021 3:59 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Well, I guess they can just market non menthol cigs to the black folks.

At least to the ones that aren't getting the contraband smokes.

It's a step in the right direction.

Marketing cancer sticks is a step in the right direction.

Your moral compass spins like a fan.

by Original Quill Wed May 05, 2021 4:07 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's a step in the right direction.

Marketing cancer sticks is a step in the right direction.

Your moral compass spins like a fan.

To the contrary, outlawing any cancer sticks is a step in the right direction. You crackers are easily confused, ain'tcha? Rolling Eyes

by Maddog Wed May 05, 2021 4:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Marketing cancer sticks is a step in the right direction.

Your moral compass spins like a fan.

To the contrary, outlawing any cancer sticks is a step in the right direction. You crackers are easily confused, ain'tcha?

Make up your damn mind. You're all over the place again.

by Original Quill Wed May 05, 2021 4:17 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

To the contrary, outlawing any cancer sticks is a step in the right direction. You crackers are easily confused, ain'tcha?

Make up your damn mind. You're all over the place again.

Ya gotta problem, sweet-pea? Work it out yerself. Stop asking northerners to bail you out. Wink

by Ben Reilly Fri May 07, 2021 10:24 pm

If I might try something:

Rate the following options in order from best approach to worst approach.

1) The public should be free to smoke cigarettes in adulthood, but must be thoroughly warned of the health risks cigarettes pose to smokers and others who inhale second-hand smoke.

2) Cigarettes should be uniformally banned to protect the public health.

3) Cigarettes should be freely sold to all adults, but without warning labels, and the public should be expected to inform itself on the health risks of smoking.

4) Cigarettes should be freely sold to anyone who wants to purchase them, including children, and if the public is to be warned about the health risks of smoking, it should be done by private charities, private medical groups and other concerned parties, but not by the government.

by eddie Fri May 07, 2021 10:27 pm

Number one.
Then three, four, two.

by Maddog Fri May 07, 2021 10:54 pm

3 ish then stop. I don't need a warning label warning me of everything. Bridges don't need warning labels telling folks that jumping off of them can be dangerous to their health. But I do believe that companies are responsible if they falsely say something isn't dangerous, or worse yet, say it's helpful, if it isn't.

But this isn't really about all cigarettes. The ACLU isn't saying cigarettes are healthy, or should be marketed to anyone.

They are worried about how certain groups are affected by creating a black market, by targeting one group more inclined to be in that market. They understand that more interactions between authorities and the citizens, will lead to more bad outcomes.

Let' put this a different way. Blacks are far more likely to be killed or killed by other blacks. Should we say guns are fine, but we are going to raise the legal age of gun purchases to 25 for black people, in order to protect them from their own choices and save more lives?

by eddie Fri May 07, 2021 10:56 pm

Interesting points Maddog.

by Maddog Fri May 07, 2021 11:00 pm

eddie wrote:Interesting points Maddog.

"The ACLU joined a coalition letter expressing concerns with H.R. 2339, Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act. The bill enacts a broad prohibition on menthol and other flavored tobacco products that has unintended criminal justice consequences. While this legislation is a well-intended effort to address health issues associated with tobacco use among youth, we have concerns that a blanket prohibition on menthol and other flavored tobacco products, which will apply to adults, will (1) disproportionately impact people and communities of color; (2) trigger criminal penalties, prioritizing criminalization over public health and harm reduction; and (3) instigate unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement."

by Maddog Fri May 07, 2021 11:03 pm

Let's not forget that Breonna Taylor was killed by cops kicking in her door looking for an illegal plant.

If that plant was legal, that deadly interaction never happens.

Less interactions are better for everyone.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 07, 2021 11:07 pm

Can't really picture the emergence of a black market to sell banned menthol cigarettes anyway. Not like you can mass produce menthol ciggies in a mobile lab.

Anyway, my point is that some options, while not perfect, are better than other options. I'd certainly not rank banning tobacco as the worst policy -- my ranking would be 1, 3, 2, 4.

by Maddog Fri May 07, 2021 11:15 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Can't really picture the emergence of a black market to sell banned menthol cigarettes anyway. Not like you can mass produce menthol ciggies in a mobile lab.

Anyway, my point is that some options, while not perfect, are better than other options. I'd certainly not rank banning tobacco as the worst policy -- my ranking would be 1, 3, 2, 4.

"If a ban is implemented, illicit market entrepreneurs would still have ready access to both cigarettes and menthol flavoring. No offense to "Spud" Hughes, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to combine the two. His patent application spelled out the process in just a few sentences. Unless the federal government attempts to turn menthol itself into a controlled substance, there will surely be many small-time sellers of menthol cigarettes meeting the demand of the millions of Americans who smoke them, including at least 77 percent of black smokers, but possibly as high as 88 percent (and around a quarter of white smokers)."

by Maddog Fri May 07, 2021 11:18 pm

https://www.cheapasmokes.com/collections/make-your-own-menthol-cigarettes

How long until people google it, like I just did.

by Sponsored content