Hacker News Reader

Comment by chmod600 | Hacker News Reader

When paternalistic policies are directed at particular demographics, it is kinda disturbing. I mean, sure, there's a reason. But there always is, and it makes me wonder if a line is being crossed here that will set a bad precedent.

View on HN

The entire "paternalistic" argument rests on the premise that the choice to smoke, or not, is for most people purely rational, and totally discounts the predatory nature of tobacco companies and the addiction that comes with it. Menthols are targeted at blacks, and especially black children, since the menthol flavoring makes them more pleasant to smoke. Of the 20 million American menthol smokers, 17 million of those are black. That's not by accident, it's intentional.

There are only 42 million black people in the US. Are you really saying that 40% of black Americans smoke menthols specifically? And presumably some percentage smoke something without menthol? That doesn't seem right.

You do have to be careful with your groupings. I wonder if this isn't a confusion between the number of cigarettes smoked by a particular population and the number of people from each population who smoke, or something like that.

I'm not sure where the number '20 million menthol users' keeps coming from, perhaps somewhere in the data behind [1]? Regardless, [2] and [3] suggest that somewhere around 20% of the African American population smokes tobacco in some form. Among those 20% of black Americans who smoke about 85% use menthols.

[1] https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-report...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-americans/in...

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-americans/in...

Does the entire paternalistic argument really rest on that? What if you believe humans are rarely entirely rational and it's a spectrum (e.g. If I was addicted to heroin but trying to quit I'd probably be less rational when I really wanted a fix than if I was a pack a day smoker doing the same)?

The alternative is to assume that most people aren't rational, except for those pushing for such laws.

If one subscribes to that, why even bother with democracy at all?

Could you expand more on how menthol cigarettes are targeted towards blacks? I have lived most of my life in "black culture" and anecdotally the targeting comes from the idea of "we smoke menthol" perpetuating culturally and generationally, not through external targeting or advertising. Maybe it was, once, and it continues as a result of that initial seed? I don't know, but I do know it is not a traditionally target ad campaign or similar. For the record, I also smoke menthols, partially because of that cultural influence.

The original harm was caused by tobacco corps targeting a particular demographic. Rectifying this wrong requires targeting that demographic, but it's not unsettling. Moreover, they have banned all the other flavors, so might as well finish the job with this one.

We’re about a couple months away from being told that opposing mandatory vaccination is racist because more black people die from COVID-19.

(I mean that seriously not as a joke...although there is some natural humor in it as well)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com