Michael Siegel links to this excellent article in Slate by Paul Smalera (in which he is extensively quoted). Smalera does a great job explaining the flaws and inconsistencies in the FDA tobacco bill. However he does slip into a pernicious way of thinking about the menthol cigarette exemption and race that needs to be challenged and avoided.
Smalera pushes the idea that this bill is “racist” because it bans the cigarette flavors that virtually no one smokes and exempts the one that many people do smoke, especially if they happen to be black. (Though, as he notes, the total number of white menthol smokers is approximately twice that of black menthol smokers.) In any other context, the racist move would be to ban the product that’s strongly preferred by African-American consumers; here it’s considered racist not to ban it. This idea portrays blacks in particular as helpless victims of tobacco companies who must be treated like children by a protective government.
In contrast, here is what non-racist tobacco policy would look like: Educate people about the dangers of cigarettes, tax them at a reasonable level, work aggressively to keep them out of the hands of minors, and then let all consumers — yes, even blacks! — make their own decisions about what, if anything, they choose to smoke.
The real reason the FDA bill exempts menthol has nothing to do with race: Menthol cigarettes make money and thus have lobbying power behind them. Clove, grape, and chocolate cigarettes don’t make much money and thus don’t have lobbying power behind them. End of story.
Unfortunately, the FDA bill is almost certain to pass and we will all be stuck with a law that, for all the reasons Smalera elucidates, will be good for virtually no one except Philip Morris. There are plenty of reasons to oppose it, not the least of which is the question of whether the government has any business at all forbidding adults from buying flavored cigarettes. The constant introduction of race into the debate distracts from these more important issues.
Update: Paul Smalera responds in the comments.
Previously:
Blunt racism
Cigars for me, but not for thee
Freshly minted bias
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (1)
That’s the question Jacob Sullum asks in his new article at Reason. Read it here.
Last week I sent the following letter to The New York Times:
Thursday’s article about legislation to ban all cigarette flavorings except menthol quotes former federal health secretaries arguing that the bill “discriminates against African-Americans.” If any proposal could be said to discriminate against African-Americans, it is perhaps the idea that we should prohibit the menthol cigarettes that three-quarters of black smokers prefer. To deny them their choice is to imply that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions and that they are helpless victims of marketing; in short, to treat them like the children the bill is intended to protect.
There are many reasons to oppose the Philip Morris-backed legislation to give the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco, including manipulation by the industry, loss of variety, and potential bans on safer alternatives to existing cigarettes. Introducing race into the debate is a distraction from these important considerations.
They printed this one from the president of Lorillard Tobacco instead.
Previously:
Freshly minted bias
Cigars for me, but not for thee
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (0)
The New York Times ran another article by Stephanie Saul today about the menthol exemption to the proposed ban on flavored cigarettes. Since black smokers are the largest buyers of menthol cigarettes, the issue is becoming entangled in racial politics. For example:
The bill’s treatment of menthol “caves to the financial interests of tobacco companies and discriminates against African-Americans — the segment of our population at greatest risk for the killing and crippling smoking-related diseases,” the letter from the former [federal health] secretaries said. “It sends a message that African American youngsters are valued less than white youngsters.”
Or this, from Saul’s previous article:
Menthol is particularly controversial because public health authorities have worried about its health effects on African-Americans. Nearly 75 percent of black smokers use menthol brands, compared with only about one in four white smokers.
That is why one former public health official says the legislation’s menthol exemption is a “cave-in to the industry,” an opinion shared by some other public health advocates.
“I think we can say definitively that menthol induces smoking in the African-American community and subsequently serves as a direct link to African-American death and disease,” said the former official, Robert G. Robinson, who retired two years ago as an associate director in the office of smoking and health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
She’s right about the financial interest: the menthol exemption is clearly a sop to Phillip Morris, the only tobacco company backing the bill. And she’s right that there’s no logical reason for allowing only menthol as a flavoring, except for the fact that it’s the flavor most consumers of flavored tobacco actually want. It’s dubious, however, to say that this discriminates against blacks. Whatever the current market shares may be, there’s no reason to think that if other flavorings are banned consumers of all races won’t switch to menthol.
In fact, it’s perverse to say that not banning a product that’s enjoyed by many African-American adults is a form of racial discrimination. To do so implies that blacks are victims of marketing, cannot responsibly make their own decisions, and need to be coercively protected from flavored tobacco products; basically, that they should be treated like children. The alternative view — that however regrettable heavy menthol cigarette use among African-Americans may be, the choice should be theirs to make — doesn’t even merit a mention within the The Times‘ reporting pages.
I don’t believe that either side in this debate is truly motivated by racism. However, if reporters are going to print allegations of discrimination in their coverage of it, they should consider that public health activists are no more immune to racial bias than anyone else.
See also Jacob’s Sullum’s coverage of the issue for Reason:
The Times Discovers the Tobacco Bill’s Flavoritism
FDA-Approved Cancer Sticks
Permalink -
Share/Save
-
Comments (1)
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Follow me on Twitter