this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
143 points (98.0% liked)

News

23608 readers
4057 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Biden administration said Friday it would again delay a decision on a regulation aiming to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes, citing the "historic attention" and "immense amount of feedback" on the controversial proposal by the Food and Drug Administration. 

"This rule has garnered historic attention and the public comment period has yielded an immense amount of feedback, including from various elements of the civil rights and criminal justice movement," Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

I am not a fan of banning things, but I think we all have our exceptions. I guess that makes us all hypocrites.

Cigs I'm torn on, while I think that if someone wants to do it regardless of if it kills them, I think that's fine. But on the other hand, the chance to spare a new generation of the statistical amount of pain it will cause on seemingly random users.

(SciFi brain kicks in) And what if a cure for all cancers, heart conditions, etc, a world where most diseases were cured, then this talk would have to be revisited.

Back to reality, a world where cancer is often terminal. In that world, where we live, I like the idea of a law like, after X year, people under Y age cannot buy cigs. You can insert your own X and Y, I'm not debating that. I just think that eventually, it would be a long term positive thing for humanity to choose values for X and Y.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Nothing should be banned is just makes for an unregulated thus unsafe market for consumers.

That said this is some real nickle and dime kinda shit for the constituents isn't it? Can we line up a vote on healthcare or more student loan relief. I don't really give a fuck about cigarettes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

True, the lobby must not want that for some reason?
What is the lobby that stops healthcare and student loan stuff? I actually don't know who is behind either.
It's so brazenly corrupt how the government ignores democracy when it's inconvenient.

[–] Son_of_dad 13 points 7 months ago

I'm done with smokers. Done. My patio is covered in cigarette butts because of jackasses who think it's acceptable to toss butts out of windows. On the ground, etc. what other group just walks around, finishes their product and tosses the refuse on the ground? I'm sick of smokers, and at the vet least I think they should pay a premium for healthcare since I'm in a universal healthcare nation

[–] stoly 9 points 7 months ago

The point is that they aren’t banning cigarettes but are banning things that make cigarettes more appealing to consume. You could smoke a non menthol.

[–] disguy_ovahea 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Devil’s Advocate- What is the benefit of cigarettes other than satisfying an already established addiction? Alcohol aids socialization, marijuana has countless benefits, even fentanyl is an effective painkiller. Keep in mind, nicotine can be taken without cigarettes.

I’m not for governmental control or banning myself, but it’s an argument that I’ve heard that I find rather compelling.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I think nicotine has positive affects staving off dementia? I can't recall where I heard that or if it's true so know that I have low confidence in this. But nicotine itself, through patches, "snus", or other "non-cigarette" consumption methods that are less destructive, should be permitted.

I see no problem with people having a chemical dependency on nicotine if they choose it.

The method of imbibing is the only part I'm focused on because inhalation of tobacco/menthol products causes so much harm, and the product can still be enjoyed without that method of imbibing.

If someone wants to assemble their own menthol cigs, like how people brew/distill their own alcohol.. I suppose that is fine also.

I keep going in circles on this, I'm fairly conflicted and the more I think about it the more I realize how hard this is. In reality we want to ban a method od consumption, not the chemical itself.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 7 months ago

Right. Nicotine has benefits, but it can be taken independently of smoking. The rest of the cigarette is carcinogenic.

[–] FlyingSquid 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I just think it needs to be fair. If you're going to ban people from imbibing cannabis, you should also ban them from imbibing tobacco. Tobacco is far more dangerous and addictive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

True, I actually went to make a comparison between nicotine and thc. I was going to focus on the differences between them, and when I went to write that I realized I mostly viewed them identically in my head, and I am pro-cannabis. So even though I don't like nicotine, in order to be consistent I must change my views to avoid bias, since I am pro-cannabis it stands that I should be pro-nicotine as well.

Too bad the nicotine industry doesn't extend that grace to the cannabis industry. "Hold on, let me spend a decade attempting to acquire monopolistic rights to the thc industry.. okay done.. now you can legalize it!"

If we didn't live in extremely corrupt times, it would be legal by now and the market would be rich with competiton. But nope, competiton only applies to new entrants into the market, the old established players will bind the hands of the government as long as possible to avoid any upstarts gaining traction in any industry similar to existing industries.

It's so transparent. So much for capitalism. Yet another reason to be anti-capitalist, the capitalists at the top redefine the rules once at the top, which waves big red flags that the authors of capitalism warned us about.

  1. Capitalism cannot function where monopolies exist.
  2. Capitalism cannot function as a system if participation is required

Both are true in our world, so the founders of capitalism would say that our system is not functionally capitalist. More of a plutocracy.

Open to corrections as I'm not an expert on economic systems.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Imbibe can either mean drink or absorb. I used the latter meaning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I had to look it up before I posted. I don't believe this meaning works. You can use it for knowledge or ideas, but in other cases just for moisture.

[–] qantravon 1 points 7 months ago

I like "partake," personally.