[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.