imagine a situation women drank more alcohol than men and then the government banned alcohol for everyone. So you would consider this bad because it's immoral to impose any kind of ban on women?

So what then? Ban it for the rich, the middle class and white people and let the people at risk smoke themselves to death ?

Where are your morals in this ? Put down your ideologies for one second and be pragmatic.

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

If they banned all alcohol for everyone, its indiscriminate, and I would not consider it to be discrimination (I'd consider it a bad idea based on the obvious). In your example, a ban on wine, but not whiskey, with the publicly stated intention of reducing alcohol intake among women, would be the equivalent, and I'd absolutely consider that misogynistic. In the case of a wine ban, yes, it would be immoral to impose that ban, because it would be targeted at women specifically.

They aren't banning cigarettes. They're banning menthols, and the publicly stated intent is to affect use of cigarettes among minorities. The policy is specifically intended to affect a demographic. Not because I say so, or because I think it does... it's what they're citing as the basis of the policy... they published it as such.

The pragmatic solution is to ban cigarettes. That would still affect the minorities disparately, but it's no longer an inherently racist proposal at that point, because it's about tobacco use period, not just the tobacco use specific to the minorities.

[–] TheFrirish@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago

Well agreed that they should ban all cigarettes. in the end this is a half arsed solution that they came up with to "help" minorities.

But to be honest, I've seen too many people die to tobacco. I don't care if the proposal is racist or not. Anything that can merely annoy a smoker's smoking habits for me is a step in the right direction.

That's the tiny hill I'm willing to die on.