Octopus Overlords

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:08 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:06 am Signed, Happy Meals.

Does McDonalds change the food that goes in Happy Meals (does any restaurant offer chemically different food on their child menu)?

Not chemically different, but replacing all or some fries with apple slices and promoting milk to go with it instead of soda.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:14 am If this was mint flavored chewing tobacco there would be a revolt.

It smacks of protecting the "noble savage" too much for me.

This is the biggest problem I have with it. While at the same time I have to balance that this was an industry that never played fair even when they knew they were hurting people and they profited off intentional harm. And the Government has an interest to protect public health. It's a tricky balance to get right.

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:13 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:08 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:06 am Signed, Happy Meals.

Does McDonalds change the food that goes in Happy Meals (does any restaurant offer chemically different food on their child menu)?

Not chemically different, but replacing all or some fries with apple slices and promoting milk to go with it instead of soda.

There are plenty of different tobacco products where people can make a choice, including not to smoke/chew at all.

I get it. Everyone has an authoritarian streak when it doesn't affect them personally.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:14 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:14 am If this was mint flavored chewing tobacco there would be a revolt.

It smacks of protecting the "noble savage" too much for me.

This is the biggest problem I have with it. While at the same time I have to balance that this was an industry that never played fair even when they knew they were hurting people and they profited off intentional harm. And the Government has an interest to protect public health. It's a tricky balance to get right.

My girlfriend pointed out this is targeted at African Americans. We can take something from them, but not the white people.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:15 amI get it. Everyone has an authoritarian streak when it doesn't affect them personally.

It comes down to authoritarianism? This is way off target. You banned cigarettes! What's next? We're all outside when the alarm sounds, doing mandated exercise, and singing, "Hey-Hey-Hey BIM's on the way"?!? When does the madness end!?!

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:08 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:06 am Signed, Happy Meals.

Does McDonalds change the food that goes in Happy Meals (does any restaurant offer chemically different food on their child menu)? If we should ban anything, it's the toy.

Smoove_B wants to ban children's toys!

EDIT: I'd love to stop the use of high fructose corn syrup. Good luck.

All McDonald's food is chemically altered in unhealthy ways to appeal to consumers. The fact that it isn't specific to children is irrelevant. They market to children, that's what is important.

Menthol cigarettes weren't altered to appeal to a minority demographic, they were altered to sell cigarettes. They appealed to certain demographics and were then heavily marketed towards them. That's kind of what advertising is supposed to do.


Should we ban Hennessy to protect black youth?

Like I said, this smells too much like the "we know what's best for you" white majority trying to ease consciences for past exploitative marketing by effecting an fairly irrelevant (to them) ban.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:15 am I get it. Everyone has an authoritarian streak when it doesn't affect them personally.

So to circle back to one of my earlier comments, you're in the camp that believes raw milk and raw milk products should be available to consumers?

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:20 amShould we ban Hennessy to protect black youth?

Like I said, this smells too much like the "we know what's best for you" white majority trying to ease consciences for past exploitative marketing by effecting an fairly irrelevant (to them) ban.

While I share the concern I'd hope that the fact that this is more grounded in the facts such as the life expectancy for certain demographics is much lower. You can attack the problem several ways such as reduce poverty, reduce health factors like violence and yes - targeted products that harm health. I'm not 100% for it or against it personally but I'd like to hear from the experts rather than reflexive cries of Nanny State or whatever the knee jerk reactions are.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:20 am All McDonald's food is chemically altered in unhealthy ways to appeal to consumers. The fact that it isn't specific to children is irrelevant. They market to children, that's what is important.

Right, and that why when they were eventually called to task on it, MCD and other purveyors changed the options and make it at least possible to get healthier foods in these meals (as pointed out above).

Menthol cigarettes weren't altered to appeal to a minority demographic, they were altered to sell cigarettes. They appealed to certain demographics and were then heavily marketed towards them. That's kind of what advertising is supposed to do.

Right, advertising an addictive, habit-forming substance that is associated with insane levels of cancer risk (also suppressed for decades).

Should we ban Hennessy to protect black youth?

It hasn't even been two weeks since Shock G died; too soon man, too soon.

Like I said, this smells too much like the "we know what's best for you" white majority trying to ease consciences for past exploitative marketing by effecting an fairly irrelevant (to them) ban.

There are times when the government does know best - because the science tells them something isn't right. The menthol-targeted sale of tobacco products has been a thing for decades - it's not something that just magically appeared in 2021. There are dozens (hundreds?) of studies that have been done demonstrating the problems. But to your point:

“Marketing of menthol cigarettes to specific groups is a social justice issue,” Mills stated. “Our research shows that youth, low-income and African-American residents are targeted with this particularly harmful and addictive product. In 2009, the FDA banned cigarettes with characterizing flavors but, despite pressure from public health researchers and community activists, excluded menthol flavoring from the ban. Our study highlights the need for a federal menthol cigarette ban and shows that it could reduce cigarette marketing in the neighborhoods that need it most.”

Social justice is a public health issue.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:24 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:15 am I get it. Everyone has an authoritarian streak when it doesn't affect them personally.

So to circle back to one of my earlier comments, you're in the camp that believes raw milk and raw milk products should be available to consumers?

I haven't given it much thought.

On the surface, can't that stuff kill you immediately as opposed to over decades?

edit: but maybe? I think your average consumer shouldn't have to worry if their supermarket is carrying salmonella bombs, but for crazy people that hate science and won't affect other people, they should have the right to live in the 1600's if they want. I'm fine with calling it child abuse too for those that want to give it to their kids.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:24 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:15 am I get it. Everyone has an authoritarian streak when it doesn't affect them personally.

So to circle back to one of my earlier comments, you're in the camp that believes raw milk and raw milk products should be available to consumers?

What if you suck the milk directly from a goat's teat? Asking for a friend.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:30 am But to your point:

“Marketing of menthol cigarettes to specific groups is a social justice issue,” Mills stated. “Our research shows that youth, low-income and African-American residents are targeted with this particularly harmful and addictive product. In 2009, the FDA banned cigarettes with characterizing flavors but, despite pressure from public health researchers and community activists, excluded menthol flavoring from the ban. Our study highlights the need for a federal menthol cigarette ban and shows that it could reduce cigarette marketing in the neighborhoods that need it most.”

It's kind of naive, and maybe a bit condescending, to think that African-American who wouldn't otherwise smoke are wooed by minty fresh cigarettes and targeted advertising to pick up the habit. It's also naive to think that cigarette companies will simply cease marketing in certain neighborhood because they can't sell menthol anymore.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:30 am Social justice is a public health issue.

I work in a safety-net hospital in Chicago. I get it.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:37 am I haven't given it much thought.

I'm oppressing you in ways you never considered!

On the surface, can't that stuff kill you immediately as opposed to over decades?

Amazingly, both. Yes, the risk of immediate harm is the main concern but there's also strong evidence suggesting that some foodborne illness agents (including those found in raw milk) put you at higher risk for chronic illness - like "reactive arthritis" - in future decades. Does anyone die directly of arthritis? No. Are people's lives made miserable because of it and at higher risk for injury and death because of it? Absolutely.

I find it more shocking that we are sitting here arguing in favor of anything the tobacco industry has done to ensnare their customer base. Using menthol to lower the barrier to getting people addicted to their product while spending decades suppressing the impact of their product?

And the answer is to ignore it because the victims of that activity are now addicted and “want” it?

That’s a helluva business model if you can get it I suppose.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:58 am And the answer is to ignore it because the victims of that activity are now addicted and “want” it?

Nobody said ignore it.

noxiousdog wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:58 am And the answer is to ignore it because the victims of that activity are now addicted and “want” it?

Nobody said ignore it.

Saying “hey assholes, you can’t doctor your product to lower the threshold for getting people chemically addicted to your cancer products” seems reasonable to me. Not doing that feels a lot like ignoring what the tobacco companies are actually doing.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:18 am

noxiousdog wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:58 am And the answer is to ignore it because the victims of that activity are now addicted and “want” it?

Nobody said ignore it.

Saying “hey assholes, you can’t doctor your product to lower the threshold for getting people chemically addicted to your cancer products” seems reasonable to me. Not doing that feels a lot like ignoring what the tobacco companies are actually doing.

So, your stance is that companies should not be allowed to add pleasurable substances to unhealthy products? Or just tobacco companies?

How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

Nice demagoguery. Do you have stock in tobacco companies or something?

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:35 am Nice demagoguery. Do you have stock in tobacco companies or something?

No. And they've always been on my do not buy list.

I don't smoke cigarettes either. I do have an occasional cigar or pipe.

I just have a sense of fairness and a belief in freedom. Even if it's detrimental to your health. It's your body.

It's always easy to ban other people's stuff. How about go on a crusade to ban some unhealthy/dangerous thing that you like?

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

Biden will be coming for your meat.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:48 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

Biden will be coming for your meat.

Socialism! (or something)

He can have my red meat when he pries it out of my cold dead hand!

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:48 am

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:48 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

Biden will be coming for your meat.

Socialism! (or something)

Here's the something part!

Something, something overreach, something something public health, something something corporate greed.

Wait, does this mean that I never again have to walk through a cloud of Swisher Sweets smoke?

Tobacco smoking has no nutritional value, so comparing additives in tobacco to additives in food doesn’t work.

And in any event there is solid government authority for the regulation of tobacco and foods. To declare menthol the hill to die on defending liberty makes no sense — even before taking into account its history, purpose and disparate effects.

There are still people trying to get cocaine added back into Coca-Cola, so nothing surprises me anymore.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:52 pm

And in any event there is solid government authority for the regulation of tobacco and foods. To declare menthol the hill to die on defending liberty makes no sense — even before taking into account its history, purpose and disparate effects.

I'm not looking at this as a liberty issue. Smoking cigarettes is bad for individual and social health. But as long as no one smokes these kind of cigarettes, which by the way aren't significantly more harmful than any other cigarettes, you can go ahead and fire up those other cigarettes all day long. That's a ridiculous message.

It's a misguided attempt at social reckoning that tells a specific minority population that the majority knows better. You can still smoke Marlboros marketed to white folk but not Kools marketed to black folk.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:32 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:52 pm

And in any event there is solid government authority for the regulation of tobacco and foods. To declare menthol the hill to die on defending liberty makes no sense — even before taking into account its history, purpose and disparate effects.

I'm not looking at this as a liberty issue. Smoking cigarettes is bad for individual and social health. But as long as no one smokes these kind of cigarettes, which by the way aren't significantly more harmful than any other cigarettes, you can go ahead and fire up those other cigarettes all day long. That's a ridiculous message.

How is that the message? I don't think the FDA is proposing this because regular cigarettes are ok. I think its reasonably fair to assume there is usage data and impacts on different populations since this has been studied for decades. If they had statistically significant evidence that 'menthol' flavoring had major impact wouldn't that be a reasonable basis to act?

It's a misguided attempt at social reckoning that tells a specific minority population that the majority knows better. You can still smoke Marlboros marketed to white folk but not Kools marketed to black folk.

I understand the qualms but this is speculation about motive behind the proposed regulation. There might be strong evidence this is the right solution *and* it might have great social justice value.

BTW - I did a little basic research and this action was pushed by citizen's groups. The FDA was being pushed this way externally and might have been ordered by a court to do so anyway. Reading about the advocacy that was in effect, it sort of mitigates my biggest qualm that this was reform without African-American representation but instead they were leaders in this advocacy. The more you know...

AMA statement on the FDA menthol ban

The FDA’s overdue response to the petition was prompted by a lawsuit filed by the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCLC), Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the American Medical Association (AMA), and the National Medical Association (NMA).

For all the focus on African Americans and marketing, I've always heard that the main objection to menthol is that it attracts kids and (by design) makes it easier for them to get addicted. Is that not part of the current argument?

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:52 pm Tobacco smoking has no nutritional value, so comparing additives in tobacco to additives in food doesn’t work.

And in any event there is solid government authority for the regulation of tobacco and foods. To declare menthol the hill to die on defending liberty makes no sense — even before taking into account its history, purpose and disparate effects.

Hobbit Pipe-weed on the other hand, is very conducive to, well, everything!

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:31 pm For all the focus on African Americans and marketing, I've always heard that the main objection to menthol is that it attracts kids and (by design) makes it easier for them to get addicted. Is that not part of the current argument?

That was a big part of the AMA and NMA argument for this from reading their press releases. The AATCLC talked about it in their press release but went further in pointing out that 85% of African Americans smoke menthols and they saw companies specifically targeted based on that. As much as people want to make this into a 'freedom' issue or nanny state issue this was citizens petitioning their government about the inconsistency in their rule making -- excluding menthol from a flavored ban. Like it or not.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

100% in favor of. no one's going to listen to me on this because i'm an oppressed minority subject to the tyranny of the majority in this opinion, but those are my thoughts.

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:47 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

100% in favor of. no one's going to listen to me on this because i'm an oppressed minority subject to the tyranny of the majority in this opinion, but those are my thoughts.

Only if you throw alcohol out with it.

coopasonic wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:59 pm

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:47 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

100% in favor of. no one's going to listen to me on this because i'm an oppressed minority subject to the tyranny of the majority in this opinion, but those are my thoughts.

Only if you throw alcohol out with it.

At least we'd have some moral and scientific consistency. I would still oppose it, but I could at least respect the argument.

coopasonic wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:59 pm

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:47 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

100% in favor of. no one's going to listen to me on this because i'm an oppressed minority subject to the tyranny of the majority in this opinion, but those are my thoughts.

Only if you throw alcohol out with it.

A ban/limitation/tax on meat could be justified on climate-policy grounds (without even bringing up the ethics of animal suffering). Alcohol, not so much.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:46 pm
A ban/limitation/tax on meat could be justified on climate-policy grounds (without even bringing up the ethics of animal suffering). Alcohol, not so much.

Why not? It's responsible for 95,000 deaths a year. And that's just excess death. It doesn't include anything about related domestic abuse.

You're still thinking about this like a numbers dude and not a public health or policy person. We don't target specific illnesses (with exception). Instead we target factors that contribute to morbidity and mortality. Smoking? Cancer, Heart Disease, Stroke. COPD. Diabetes. In terms of having significant impact, targeting cigarettes it allows us to then see real reductions in 5+ diseases.

For meat, there are studies demonstrating some association with health outcomes (heart disease, some cancers) but in terms of data, targeting cigarettes is a much better "investment' of our resources and efforts.

Regardless, if I could wave a magic wand and stop all meat consumption and replace it with viable plant alternatives, I would. Not just for the health issues, but for the environmental and moral ones; I get it. I support it. But from a practical standpoint it would require the dismantling of modern society as we understand it. Can we get there? Absolutely. But right now we can eliminate mentholated tobacco products and still have a measurable impact.

Stop trying to be perfect and just think about being better.

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:47 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:29 am How about a ban on meat? That would improve the health of all of us and help the environment too.

100% in favor of. no one's going to listen to me on this because i'm an oppressed minority subject to the tyranny of the majority in this opinion, but those are my thoughts.

If you can find a way to get viable protein into the sticks, I'll vote for that. But as it is, there's no way I could get enough whole-food protein from any source I have access to and can eat.