[austincheney]

No, the press release does specifically target black people:

> One studyExternal Link Disclaimer suggests that banning menthol cigarettes in the U.S. would lead an additional 923,000 smokers to quit, including 230,000 African Americans in the first 13 to 17 months after a ban goes into effect. An earlier studyExternal Link Disclaimer projected that about 633,000 deaths would be averted, including about 237,000 deaths averted for African Americans.

Then they go on to rationalize those positions about African Americans because that progress hasn’t been experienced by everyone equally.

I am not stating any position whether specifically targeting black people in this ban is good or bad. I am only pointing out that this group is specifically mentioned in the press release.

[sangnoir]

> Then they go on to rationalize those positions about African Americans because that progress hasn’t been experienced by everyone equally

I don't see any rationalizations - here are the basic facts:

1. Menthol is the last flavor that's available for sale

2. Black people are extremely over-represented among smokers of menthol cigarettes.

Stating that banning of other flavors (except Menthol!) didn't have a proportionate effect among black smokers is not rationalization - that's just a fact. I don't know why anyone would be uncomfortable with this. The reason Menthol is being banned is not because its popular among black people (which is what gp asserted and you appear to be opposing).

[austincheney]

I am not agreeing or opposing.

[dragonwriter]

Yes, the press release highlights the racial disparities resulting from the previous, and blatantly racist, exclusion of menthols fron the general ban on characterizing flavors.

[austincheney]

That’s a non sequitur.

The data suggests, as mentioned in the press release, African Americans disproportionately favor menthol flavored cigarettes. Failing to ban such previously is unfortunate but not racist and certainly not blatantly racist unless there was intent to disproportionately harm African Americans. Prior intent was not mentioned in the press release.

[dragonwriter]

> Failing to ban such previously is unfortunate but not racist

No, it was very much racist.

> and certainly not blatantly racist unless there was intent to disproportionately harm African Americans.

Both that the exception would have disproportionate impact on African-Americans and that the overt logic of the flavor ban applied equally to menthol was well known when the flavor ban was adopted. Intent is the only reasonable conclusion.

[austincheney]

I am trying to follow your logic, but its fast and loose. It sounds like you are saying the prior cigarette flavor bans occurred after the cited evidence about African Americans consuming menthol cigarettes more frequently than other Americans therefore menthol cigarettes were not banned intentionally as a weapon to harm African Americans. That is a lot of assumptions not based on anything plus a factual statement that is likely false about the timeline.

Coincidence is not racism. Inventing a story from imagined assumptions isn't helpful for people disadvantaged by actual racism.