Found this interesting:
Menthol Cigarette Ban in U.S. May Aid Public Health, Advisors to FDA Find - Bloomberg
Menthol Cigarette Ban in U.S. May Aid Public Health, Advisors to FDA Find - Bloomberg
Possible Analogue Menthol Ban?
- Thread starter ChipHead
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
"The panel urged more FDA studies on whether restricting menthol cigarettes would increase demand on the illegal market."
This part is really funny. I'm sure my smoking friends would buy black market menthols if they were banned. I don't see any validity to this story or likelihood that menthols would get banned...
This part is really funny. I'm sure my smoking friends would buy black market menthols if they were banned. I don't see any validity to this story or likelihood that menthols would get banned...
Obviously the FDA does not care for our safety or cigarettes would be banned altogether. It makes me laugh when they say that menthol cigarettes are dangerous and hazardous to our helath. All of the other types of smoeks are not?
If they cared for anyones safety they would not be trying to ban e-cigs.
And if they went as far as to ban menthols, they might as well ban the rest of them too.
If they cared for anyones safety they would not be trying to ban e-cigs.
And if they went as far as to ban menthols, they might as well ban the rest of them too.
Last edited:
Big tobacco will fight this due to loss of sales and I bet they win. FDA doesn't care about anything other than control, control, control.
Scorched our government informed the FDA that they could control tobacco but not take it completely off the market. What would the administration do without all those taxes? It's like the irony of making cigarettes and loose tobacco illegal to mail via USPS but the old fogies' stogies are still allowed. 
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The FDA's announcement is at: FDA Remarks on the Report and Recommendation on the Public Health Impact of Menthol Cigarettes
TPSAC's recommendation that “removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States” isn't supported by the evidence, and I'd be shocked if the FDA actually proposed banning menthol cigarettes.
The TPSAC failed to consider the many enormous negative impacts of a newly created black market for menthol cigarettes, as well as the loss of critically important federal, state and local health and healthcare programs that are funded by more than ten billion dollars annually in menthol cigarette tax and settlement revenue.
The FDA and TPSAC squandered a year they should have spent promulgating regulations that reduce morbidity and mortality, like informing smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
I think this decision by TPSAC is likely to backfire on the TPSAC and the FDA, which could benefit future tobacco regulatory decisions by TPSAC and the FDA (including the regulation of smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives).
TPSAC's recommendation that “removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States” isn't supported by the evidence, and I'd be shocked if the FDA actually proposed banning menthol cigarettes.
The TPSAC failed to consider the many enormous negative impacts of a newly created black market for menthol cigarettes, as well as the loss of critically important federal, state and local health and healthcare programs that are funded by more than ten billion dollars annually in menthol cigarette tax and settlement revenue.
The FDA and TPSAC squandered a year they should have spent promulgating regulations that reduce morbidity and mortality, like informing smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
I think this decision by TPSAC is likely to backfire on the TPSAC and the FDA, which could benefit future tobacco regulatory decisions by TPSAC and the FDA (including the regulation of smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives).
Doc Siegel says TPSAC does NOT recommend banning menthods... The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: FDA Advisory Panel Does Not Recommend Menthol Ban and Warns of Potential Black Market: Huge Victory for Lorillard
I never even like flavored analogs that much, menthol included. then again I only like analog cigars so that might be why, but my grandpa smokes analogs (which I'm going to try to fix soon) and he said he doesn't like menthol at all, and I know several people who smoke analogs that will tell you the same thing about menthol. almost all the underage smokers I have ever met when I was in high school said they would rather have non menthol than menthol. it's like some people like coke and some people like sprite, no one is worse than the other, it's just a matter of personal preference
What was the rest of the sentence? "...if a large percentage of menthol smokers quit as a result; however if the result was ...."
Nah... The FDA would never quote anything out of context, would they?
Camel came out with a few flavors I smoked now and then before they had to take the flavored ones off the market. I don't remember the flavors only that they were part of the signature blends. There were 4 flavors and I liked two of them but even so I still smoked regular ones (sort I smoked the turkish golds) most of the time. It was more for when I wanted something a little different. I haven't smoked a menthol in years. I tried them 1st my friends smoked them but I started on Marlboro Reds *shrug*
The recommendations are largely dependent on which parts of the evidence the TPSAC ignores.
This is from the Abstract for Nicotine dependence and quitting behaviors among menthol and non-menthol smokers with similar consumptive patterns.
Fagan P, Moolchan ET, Hart A Jr, Rose A, Lawrence D, Shavers VL, Gibson JT.
Based strictly on this sentence, one might deduce that it would be good to get rid of menthol because menthold smokers are more dependent, therefore they would have more problems quitting than non menthol smokers.
But if you look at the paragraph before the one I just quoted, you learn "It ain't necessarily so."
This is from the Abstract for Nicotine dependence and quitting behaviors among menthol and non-menthol smokers with similar consumptive patterns.
Fagan P, Moolchan ET, Hart A Jr, Rose A, Lawrence D, Shavers VL, Gibson JT.
Based strictly on this sentence, one might deduce that it would be good to get rid of menthol because menthold smokers are more dependent, therefore they would have more problems quitting than non menthol smokers.
But if you look at the paragraph before the one I just quoted, you learn "It ain't necessarily so."
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Here is my commentary about the TPSAC menthol cigarette report and reactions to it.
TPSAC issues menthol report, CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA call for ban, tobacco stocks increase
The FDA TPSAC's 231 page report on menthol cigarettes (released on Friday) is at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Adviso...uctsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM247689.pdf
If nothing else, the menthol cigarette controversy in the US has widened the gap (created by tobacco harm reduction) between those whose goal is to responsibly regulate tobacco products to reduce tobacco morbidity/mortality and those whose goal is to ban the sale of whatever tobacco/nicotine product they consider politically attainable (e.g. snus, e-cigarettes, dissolvables, other flavored products) if they repeatedly misrepresent its health risks and/or marketing.
On Friday, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA urged the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes
FDA Advisory Committee Concludes Removal of Menthol Cigarettes Would Benefit Public Health - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
Meanwhile, tobacco industry stock values increased, especially for Lorillard, maker of Newport, the nation's largest selling menthol cigarette brand.
Unfortunately, the TPSAC's recommendation that "removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States" addressed a vastly different question than the nine questions the committee was asked to address (all of which dealt with the public health impact of menthol IN cigarettes, not the potential public health impact of removing menthol FROM cigarettes).
In fact, the most important paragraph in the menthol report (on page 210) states:
"TPSAC acknowledges that the potential for contraband menthol cigarettes exists, should FDA choose to implement a ban or take some other policy action that restricts availability of menthol cigarettes. Consistent with the requirements of the Act, TPSAC recommends that FDA consult with appropriate experts and carry out relevant analyses depending on the actions taken in response to this report from TPSAC. At present, TPSAC is not constituted to carry out such analyses, and lacking knowledge of FDA's intent on receipt of this report, it concluded that FDA would need to assess the potential for contraband menthol cigarettes as required by the Act."
That paragraph not only conflicts with the TPSAC's recommendation that "removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States", but it also acknowledges that the TPSAC and its report didn't adequately consider the public health (or other) impacts of removing menthol cigarettes from the legal market. The report devoted less than two of its 231 pages to contraband menthol cigarettes, which would replace some/much/most of the $25+ billion per year menthol cigarette industry in the US (if the FDA banned the products).
In contrast, the new US GAO report Illicit Tobacco http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11313.pdf provides far more details about the huge and growing illicit cigarette market in the US, which an FDA menthol ban would quickly double, triple, quadruple or more. Although the TPSAC report cited an industry funded study estimating that black market menthol cigarettes would cost more than currently taxed menthol cigarettes, all other illicit cigarettes sold in the US are far less expensive than currently taxed legal cigarettes. If black market menthol cigarettes are sold at a lower price than currently taxed menthol cigarettes, a menthol cigarette ban could result in increased use of menthol cigarettes.
The TPSAC report also failed to consider a menthol cigarette ban's public health impact of the loss of up to $16 billion that federal, state and local governments receive annually in tax revenue and settlement payments from legal sales of menthol cigarettes. Do members of the TPSAC (and CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA) truly believe that public health would benefit by reducing funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and by reducing funding for state/local smoking prevention/cessation programs and other health and healthcare programs?
A ban on menthol cigarettes would create three basic options for about 19 million smokers (i.e. switching to nonmenthol cigarettes, buying untaxed black market menthol cigarettes and/or quitting smoking), but nobody knows what percentages of menthol smokers would choose which of those options. Clearly, fewer menthol smokers would switch to taxed nonmenthol cigarettes or would quit smoking if a black market for menthol cigarettes proliferates, especially if nontaxed black market menthol cigarettes are less expensive than taxed nonmenthol cigarettes.
I'll be shocked if the FDA proposes a ban on menthol cigarettes, and its clear to me that banning menthol cigarettes would NOT benefit public health or civil society, but would primarily benefit organized crime.
Although alcohol and ......... prohibition advocates similarly claimed that banning those products would protect public health, history has documented how those prohibition laws sharply increased organized crime, violence, government spending and corruption, while having very little or no discernable impact on public health.
The FDA and its TPSAC have squandered a year (studying menthol cigarettes) that could have been spent studying and promulgating regulations that would truly reduce tobacco morbidity and mortality, like:
- acknowledging that dissolvables and other smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes,
- acknowledging that e-cigarettes are tobacco products and are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and
- eliminating the misleading and inaccurate warnings on smokeless tobacco products.
News stories about the FDA TPSAC's report on menthol cigarettes are at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html?_r=1
FDA Panel Criticizes Menthol Cigarettes - WSJ.com
FDA panel finds ban on menthol cigarettes would ‘benefit the public health’ - The Washington Post
FDA panel recommends removing menthol cigarettes from market | JournalNow.com
Menthol cigarette ban: FDA panel weighs menthol cigarette ban - latimes.com
Menthol Cigarette Ban May Aid Public Health, Panel Says - Bloomberg
NationalJournal.com - FDA's Tobacco Committee Recommends Removing Menthols - Friday, March 18, 2011
Banning menthol cigarettes would help public health, panel tells FDA | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com
FDA panel: Menthol cigarette ban good for public health - USATODAY.com
BBC News - Menthol tobacco firm shares soar
Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongehela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
TPSAC issues menthol report, CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA call for ban, tobacco stocks increase
The FDA TPSAC's 231 page report on menthol cigarettes (released on Friday) is at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Adviso...uctsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM247689.pdf
If nothing else, the menthol cigarette controversy in the US has widened the gap (created by tobacco harm reduction) between those whose goal is to responsibly regulate tobacco products to reduce tobacco morbidity/mortality and those whose goal is to ban the sale of whatever tobacco/nicotine product they consider politically attainable (e.g. snus, e-cigarettes, dissolvables, other flavored products) if they repeatedly misrepresent its health risks and/or marketing.
On Friday, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA urged the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes
FDA Advisory Committee Concludes Removal of Menthol Cigarettes Would Benefit Public Health - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
Meanwhile, tobacco industry stock values increased, especially for Lorillard, maker of Newport, the nation's largest selling menthol cigarette brand.
Unfortunately, the TPSAC's recommendation that "removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States" addressed a vastly different question than the nine questions the committee was asked to address (all of which dealt with the public health impact of menthol IN cigarettes, not the potential public health impact of removing menthol FROM cigarettes).
In fact, the most important paragraph in the menthol report (on page 210) states:
"TPSAC acknowledges that the potential for contraband menthol cigarettes exists, should FDA choose to implement a ban or take some other policy action that restricts availability of menthol cigarettes. Consistent with the requirements of the Act, TPSAC recommends that FDA consult with appropriate experts and carry out relevant analyses depending on the actions taken in response to this report from TPSAC. At present, TPSAC is not constituted to carry out such analyses, and lacking knowledge of FDA's intent on receipt of this report, it concluded that FDA would need to assess the potential for contraband menthol cigarettes as required by the Act."
That paragraph not only conflicts with the TPSAC's recommendation that "removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States", but it also acknowledges that the TPSAC and its report didn't adequately consider the public health (or other) impacts of removing menthol cigarettes from the legal market. The report devoted less than two of its 231 pages to contraband menthol cigarettes, which would replace some/much/most of the $25+ billion per year menthol cigarette industry in the US (if the FDA banned the products).
In contrast, the new US GAO report Illicit Tobacco http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11313.pdf provides far more details about the huge and growing illicit cigarette market in the US, which an FDA menthol ban would quickly double, triple, quadruple or more. Although the TPSAC report cited an industry funded study estimating that black market menthol cigarettes would cost more than currently taxed menthol cigarettes, all other illicit cigarettes sold in the US are far less expensive than currently taxed legal cigarettes. If black market menthol cigarettes are sold at a lower price than currently taxed menthol cigarettes, a menthol cigarette ban could result in increased use of menthol cigarettes.
The TPSAC report also failed to consider a menthol cigarette ban's public health impact of the loss of up to $16 billion that federal, state and local governments receive annually in tax revenue and settlement payments from legal sales of menthol cigarettes. Do members of the TPSAC (and CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA) truly believe that public health would benefit by reducing funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and by reducing funding for state/local smoking prevention/cessation programs and other health and healthcare programs?
A ban on menthol cigarettes would create three basic options for about 19 million smokers (i.e. switching to nonmenthol cigarettes, buying untaxed black market menthol cigarettes and/or quitting smoking), but nobody knows what percentages of menthol smokers would choose which of those options. Clearly, fewer menthol smokers would switch to taxed nonmenthol cigarettes or would quit smoking if a black market for menthol cigarettes proliferates, especially if nontaxed black market menthol cigarettes are less expensive than taxed nonmenthol cigarettes.
I'll be shocked if the FDA proposes a ban on menthol cigarettes, and its clear to me that banning menthol cigarettes would NOT benefit public health or civil society, but would primarily benefit organized crime.
Although alcohol and ......... prohibition advocates similarly claimed that banning those products would protect public health, history has documented how those prohibition laws sharply increased organized crime, violence, government spending and corruption, while having very little or no discernable impact on public health.
The FDA and its TPSAC have squandered a year (studying menthol cigarettes) that could have been spent studying and promulgating regulations that would truly reduce tobacco morbidity and mortality, like:
- acknowledging that dissolvables and other smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes,
- acknowledging that e-cigarettes are tobacco products and are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and
- eliminating the misleading and inaccurate warnings on smokeless tobacco products.
News stories about the FDA TPSAC's report on menthol cigarettes are at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html?_r=1
FDA Panel Criticizes Menthol Cigarettes - WSJ.com
FDA panel finds ban on menthol cigarettes would ‘benefit the public health’ - The Washington Post
FDA panel recommends removing menthol cigarettes from market | JournalNow.com
Menthol cigarette ban: FDA panel weighs menthol cigarette ban - latimes.com
Menthol Cigarette Ban May Aid Public Health, Panel Says - Bloomberg
NationalJournal.com - FDA's Tobacco Committee Recommends Removing Menthols - Friday, March 18, 2011
Banning menthol cigarettes would help public health, panel tells FDA | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com
FDA panel: Menthol cigarette ban good for public health - USATODAY.com
BBC News - Menthol tobacco firm shares soar
Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongehela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
Bill, a fine response. I'd personally like to see them ban menthol. Not so much to limit the cigarettes that are available to smokers, but to see the FDA do something that really impacts smokers and the resultant political hailstorm that would follow.
As Shakespeare wrote, "Much Ado About Nothing". TC has become a very profitable joke. Rather than looking for valid methods of reducing the smoking rates (ie. getting people that won't quit to move to much less dangerous alternatives), they make a lot of noise and insure job security by making it harder for true harm reduction products. They want to keep them as minor or non-existent products. This insures that the money keeps pouring in and they stay at the forefront of working to a "healthier" environment. Perhaps in another 1,000 years they'll be successful.
JMHO
As Shakespeare wrote, "Much Ado About Nothing". TC has become a very profitable joke. Rather than looking for valid methods of reducing the smoking rates (ie. getting people that won't quit to move to much less dangerous alternatives), they make a lot of noise and insure job security by making it harder for true harm reduction products. They want to keep them as minor or non-existent products. This insures that the money keeps pouring in and they stay at the forefront of working to a "healthier" environment. Perhaps in another 1,000 years they'll be successful.
JMHO
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
