It's racist to specifically target a type favored by minorities if your intent is to target minorities, and the stated intent is specifically to target minorities with a ban... ironically, to protect them from being discriminated against by their chosen type of cigarettes.

They published that... they very publicly are saying that they're going to protect these minorities by directly targeting them with a ban. It's not me saying it's a racist/homophobic ban, it's the published premise itself. The entire basis of the ban is published as being to keep cigarettes from affecting blacks, browns, and LGBTQ+ people by eliminating their preferred type.

How on earth are there people who don't understand this? Are you so tied to the politics that you cannot or will not see this objectively? It's blatant.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Targeting something based on race and minority status is not necessarily racism. That's kind of a bizarre jump.

The groups being targeted with the ban are, coincidentally, the groups for whom smoking rates are highest.

If you want to have the biggest impact, it makes sense to target the groups that are A) the majority of smokers and B) those least well-protected against starting smoking by current initiatives.

FWIW I'm against this ban on pure "people should be allowed to do what they want" grounds, but your specific angle of attack seems ill-informed.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html?s_cid=OSH_tips_GL0005&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TipsRegular+2021%3BS%3BWL%3BBR%3BIMM%3BDTC%3BCO&utm_content=Smoking+-+Facts_P&utm_term=facts+about+smoking&gclid=CjwKCAjwvfmoBhAwEiwAG2tqzFPUh2JfCBtpkenGzJ46KyV6jx_UTzvoVaK5Y9daeUDghS1UBBxWChoCr5UQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

[–] aelwero@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a false analogy, it's just brutally logical and completely disregards the merits of the situation...

Logging is the deadliest occupation on earth. Banning minorities from the logging industry would greatly improve their odds of survival. It's exactly the same as banning their chosen cigarettes.

I don't really have a preference on tobacco bans at all tbh. I do think people should have options, but I don't disagree with the intent of smoking bans either... the issue here is, it's not a choice between those two for everyone, it's a selective ban that removes the options from a singular group, and the selection is based on race and orientation.

The merits of the ban are, in my opinion, not all that relevant. I don't disagree with banning cigarettes entirely, I don't disagree with onerous taxation as an incentive to reduce sales, I don't object to any measures that are indiscriminate, because I don't really care that much tbh, I switched to vapes in 2012.

I object to the specificity.

From another perspective, were talking about a ban on tobacco that selectively preserves tobacco use for straight white people... does that make it more clear why I object?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

brutally logical

No it's totally unrelated to the discussionl. I think your objection is very poorly thought out.

I used to smoke menthols and I'm white as the driven snow my man. Nothing racist about targeting the cigarettes preferred by the people who are majority smokers by percentage.

I also think "this doesn't effect me so I don't care" is a poor way of looking at governance.