(04-29-2021, 08:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And how could cigarette companies know that menthol would be popular with black people?
It would have been much cheaper and easier to just make a cigarette with black paper to market to the black community if the demand could just be created by marketing.
...I am actually disagreeing with Bel that they were targeted to African Americans on launch. In fact, Kools originally were meant to be a high-class sophisticated brand but was eventually adopted by the African American community.
As to that point, funny enough, they did try other gimmicks after the success of Kools. They came out with a brand called "X" that was literally meant to play on Malcolm X but it bombed badly. There were other attempts to play off the African American tie but when they became too obvious they tended to be rejected.
(04-29-2021, 09:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: ...I am actually disagreeing with Bel that they were targeted to African Americans on launch. In fact, Kools originally were meant to be a high-class sophisticated brand but was eventually adopted by the African American community.
Yeah, I was just adding to your post instead of arguing against it.
(04-29-2021, 08:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: I don't know about that. The very first advertisement for Menthols didn't have a black person on them, and Kools didn't come out until a decade later. The rise of Menthol didn't occur until the 1950's so there was a lot of ramp-up until mass adoption by the African American community.
My understanding was that Kools were all about the connection to the jazz scene, which was predominantly black. It wasn't until then that menthols really started to grab hold.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-29-2021, 09:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: My understanding was that Kools were all about the connection to the jazz scene, which was predominantly black. It wasn't until then that menthols really started to grab hold.
Nah, Kools when released were not really targeted at the African American community or really pushing the jazz thing. For the first decade (mid 1930s-1940s), all their advertisements used a cartoon penguin and mainly focused on acting as if it was a remedy for a cold and there really wasn't anything cool about it. There was a push during that era to position it as a "high class" cigarette as well that never really took hold. It wasn't really until the mid to late 1950's that the advertising switched a bit, although the penguin stayed alive in some places for a while longer, where you started seeing "hip" African American models in their advertisements.
Now it doesn't mean the Jazz scene adoption didn't start before the direct advertising to it, it would make sense advertisement came based on where it was being adopted, but they really weren't targeting the community at launch.
(04-29-2021, 08:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's actually a topic that has had quite a few research papers done on it. I know in college we looked at some of them that focused around the marketing practices and there definitely was a piling on in the 1950's and 1960's once it was established that menthol cigarettes were the preferred cigarette of the African American community. Even things like Kool brand was part of it as it intertwined itself with the "Cool Jazz" movement and helped reinforce menthol's place in the culture. After that, you can point to things like almost 3x more advertisements for menthol cigarettes being in African American targeted magazines than other magazines that had cigarette advertisements. That kind of behavior carried on for decades, and we know a lot of this from internal documents that came from the tobacco industry lawsuits we have seen over the years.
As to the very start though, I am not sure anyone will ever really know how that train started rolling. There was a paper published a few years ago that did link Menthol preference to a specific gene only found in African Americans but the gene is only found in about 10% of the African American population so it doesn't explain the whole thing but it is an interesting thing to note.
One of my officers, I have mentioned her before, and I had this exact same discussion more than once. One conclusion was that menthol additive makes cheaper tobacco taste smoother by masking the harshness. So they can sell cheaper cigarettes to the black community for the same price or higher. There is a YouTube channel I really like called Steve1989MREInfo. Basically he eats MRE's from around the world, even going back to before WW2. There isn't a lot from those older MRE's that he could actually eat, but he still opens them. Cigarettes were included with older rations and he never encountered a pack of menthols until the Vietnam era rations. As an aside, I know it sounds like it wouldn't be interesting at all, but the channel is actually really enjoyable, mainly because Steve is an interesting/amusing guy. As to the question at hand, this may be a chicken/egg argument.
(04-29-2021, 09:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: My understanding was that Kools were all about the connection to the jazz scene, which was predominantly black. It wasn't until then that menthols really started to grab hold.
I have a Peter Yarrow record from 1973 and in the gatefold he's sitting at a mixing board with a pack of KOOLs with him...maybe he wrote Puff the Magic Dragon about menthols?
I normally have the somewhat libertarian take of "If people want to do it, let them do it" when it comes to smoking. Everyone on the planet knows it's bad for you (I honestly don't even think cigarette companies are fighting that battle anymore. It seems like pretty definitively settled fact that smoking causes lung cancer), so if you still choose to do it, that's on you.
On top of that, prohibition of drugs and alcohol has never really worked. The prohibition period for alcohol and the banning of illegal drugs and subsequent "war on drugs" has done nothing but put hundreds of thousands of low level/non violent offenders in jail and significantly increased the flow of money into illegal operations such as gangs and "the mafia."
However, the racialized marketing of menthols does make it seem related to the systemic racism in this country. I am not educated enough on the history of menthol cigarettes and their marketing to black people specifically, I just know the stereotype of black people and menthols. But if there was an intentional push to marketing them towards black people for some arguably nefarious reason, especially if they are explicitly marketed to young black people, I'd at least consider banning them a reasonable thing. As long as the violators of the ban are the sellers (I.E. the production company, not necessarily the stores, if they were still somehow in circulation) and not the purchasers. If you banned menthols and then arrested black people who are addicted and tried to purchase them anyway, then that would obviously be a huge problem and would actually increase the systemic racism in our country.
Not really my wheelhouse though, so I defer to others for anything beyond the surface level assumptions.
(04-29-2021, 11:21 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I normally have the somewhat libertarian take of "If people want to do it, let them do it" when it comes to smoking. Everyone on the planet knows it's bad for you (I honestly don't even think cigarette companies are fighting that battle anymore. It seems like pretty definitively settled fact that smoking causes lung cancer), so if you still choose to do it, that's on you.
Agreed.
Quote:On top of that, prohibition of drugs and alcohol has never really worked. The prohibition period for alcohol and the banning of illegal drugs and subsequent "war on drugs" has done nothing but put hundreds of thousands of low level/non violent offenders in jail and significantly increased the flow of money into illegal operations such as gangs and "the mafia."
Also, 100% agreed
Quote:However, the racialized marketing of menthols does make it seem related to the systemic racism in this country. I am not educated enough on the history of menthol cigarettes and their marketing to black people specifically, I just know the stereotype of black people and menthols. But if there was an intentional push to marketing them towards black people for some arguably nefarious reason, especially if they are explicitly marketed to young black people, I'd at least consider banning them a reasonable thing. As long as the violators of the ban are the sellers (I.E. the production company, not necessarily the stores, if they were still somehow in circulation) and not the purchasers. If you banned menthols and then arrested black people who are addicted and tried to purchase them anyway, then that would obviously be a huge problem and would actually increase the systemic racism in our country.
Not really my wheelhouse though, so I defer to others for anything beyond the surface level assumptions.
Here I think you go off the rails. First off, I'd say there would be more to this argument if menthols were markedly more addictive or health damaging, but they are not. Secondly, products are marketed to groups all the time, with the groups varying by age, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference etc. This, on its own is not racist in any way, unless, again, the product is worse in some way and this is the reason for the targeted consumer base. Even then, and this is one of the biggest issues I have with left leaning types (I'm not referring to you but in general) is the baked in assumption of that position that group X cannot think or figure things out for their own, an adult can determine whether to use the product or not. This "white savior" complex is more than a little prevalent on the left. Black people are often infantilized, characterized as needing your (re. white people) help to figure things out. An adult black person is no less capable than an adult of any other ethnicity, and thus in no more need of "help" from the government to avoid a certain product than anyone else.
I certainly have zero issue with eliminating tobacco or alcohol adds that target those under eighteen. But adults are adults, let them make up their own minds. They certainly don't need the government doing it for them.
(04-29-2021, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I certainly have zero issue with eliminating tobacco or alcohol adds that target those under eighteen. But adults are adults, let them make up their own minds. They certainly don't need the government doing it for them.
I think the "why" is a bit of political opportunism but the end results are actually good for another reason. Menthol is a flavor similar to those that were banned because they are preferred by underage smokers. The tobacco industry fought tooth and nail to keep it when other flavors were banned because of its ties to the African American community as a whole. Studies still show Menthol cigarettes are the preferred type for underage smokers, so while some people's reason for wanting to ban them maybe for different reasons, the results still will benefit a view I think you support.
Here I think you go off the rails. First off, I'd say there would be more to this argument if menthols were markedly more addictive or health damaging, but they are not. Secondly, products are marketed to groups all the time, with the groups varying by age, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference etc. This, on its own is not racist in any way, unless, again, the product is worse in some way and this is the reason for the targeted consumer base. Even then, and this is one of the biggest issues I have with left leaning types (I'm not referring to you but in general) is the baked in assumption of that position that group X cannot think or figure things out for their own, an adult can determine whether to use the product or not. This "white savior" complex is more than a little prevalent on the left. Black people are often infantilized, characterized as needing your (re. white people) help to figure things out. An adult black person is no less capable than an adult of any other ethnicity, and thus in no more need of "help" from the government to avoid a certain product than anyone else.
I certainly have zero issue with eliminating tobacco or alcohol adds that target those under eighteen. But adults are adults, let them make up their own minds. They certainly don't need the government doing it for them.
Like I said, I'd only even consider banning them if there is evidence of insidious marketing towards young black people specifically. I'm not aware of whether these are more damaging, but I have heard they're more addictive, so that could play a role. I ultimately think banning them would cause more harm than good unless there is some significant thing I'm missing, especially given the risk to black people banning their preferred cigarette type would do if the ban is carried out against the consumer rather than the seller (as we saw with the drug war imprisoning users).
Democrats - Covid is bad!
Conservatives - Pffft, car accidents and heart disease kills more people than covid...why don't they worry about that?
Democrats - Seatbelt laws and reduction of red meat and trans fats and cigarettes'!
Conservatives - BOOOO!!!!!!
Anwho, I was canoodling with a European chick in college and she smoked menthols and it was like kissing an ashtray full of cough drops.
Subtle racism in the thread noted, I think cultural shifts through education are far more effective, as we've seen with the last few generations smoking less.
The issue now is reframing the education to include vape as well as explaining the reasons why it's best to wait until you're a bit older to smoke pot.
(04-29-2021, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Subtle racism in the thread noted, I think cultural shifts through education are far more effective, as we've seen with the last few generations smoking less.
The issue now is reframing the education to include vape as well as explaining the reasons why it's best to wait until you're a bit older to smoke pot.
It's actually interesting because this is being framed as banning menthol to save the African American population, but I was just reading the ban will also ban flavored cigars which was a loophole to the ban on flavored cigarettes a decade ago (it didn't include cigars). That makes me think that the actual intent probably is a little more child-centric even if there are collateral positive outcomes for the African American community.
(04-29-2021, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Subtle racism in the thread noted, I think cultural shifts through education are far more effective, as we've seen with the last few generations smoking less.
Agreed to the second, but WTF to the first?
Quote:The issue now is reframing the education to include vape as well as explaining the reasons why it's best to wait until you're a bit older to smoke pot.
Education is always the preferred method. At the end of the day bans do nothing but create a black market. This menthol ban is a bad idea.
(04-29-2021, 01:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: It's actually interesting because this is being framed as banning menthol to save the African American population, but I was just reading the ban will also ban flavored cigars which was a loophole to the ban on flavored cigarettes a decade ago (it didn't include cigars). That makes me think that the actual intent probably is a little more child-centric even if there are collateral positive outcomes for the African American community.
Wait, this hits flavored cigars, too? What about the blunt wraps!?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
I follow this guy on YouTube, he's a Canadian lawyer out of Montreal. I don't always agree with his takes but he tends to present a well reasoned, fact based, argument. He just posted a video on this exact subject if you care to check it out.
(04-29-2021, 05:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, it bans flavored cigars too. The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that it will propose a policy to ban menthol cigarettes and all flavored cigars within a year.
When I was younger, we used to use White Owl's like nobody's business. I don't know what the kids are using these days, though. Haven't touched the stuff in over a decade. The feds need to get on the stick, though, because legalization in Virginia happens July 1 and I want to try some of those edibles.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-29-2021, 07:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When I was younger, we used to use White Owl's like nobody's business. I don't know what the kids are using these days, though. Haven't touched the stuff in over a decade. The feds need to get on the stick, though, because legalization in Virginia happens July 1 and I want to try some of those edibles.
It is an odd contradiction to be pushing to legalize marijuana, which I've been in favor of for decades, at the same time you ban menthol cigarettes and Black and Milds. I can't use marijuana, for obvious reasons, but a large number of my friends do. If you're doing edibles be careful. They hit you all at once and it's a completely different type of high. Even experienced smokers can take too much. If you take too much you're going to have a bad time.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
