The proponents of a menthol ban continue to deluge the American public with studies and press statements supporting their position.
In the past several days consider:
FDA Must Ban Menthol Smokes, Louis Sullivan, Atlanta Constitution
Tobacco Giants Engage in ‘Predatory Marketing’, Stanford School of Medicine
Preceding the aforementioned actions, the American Public Health Association released a number of studies supporting a ban.
Much in the same way that water will always flow downhill, the public can expect to continue to be inundated by studies proposing a ban sponsored by organizations whose alleged mission is to protect the public health.
The problem is that the organized public health community can not come to grips with the following dilemma; it is best that one not smoke, but if you do smoke, do not smoke contraband cigarettes.
Why? As CRE was the first to point out, contraband cigarettes present health hazards often several orders of magnitude greater than legal cigarettes. Virtually every study of the economics of a menthol ban demonstrates that there will be a significant increase in contraband if a menthol ban were enacted.
Consequently, just as water flows downhill, so will the publications supporting a menthol ban; the publications, however, will not be able to overcome the overwhelming public argument resulting from the adverse health impact of contraband cigarettes—as witnessed by the complete absence of such a consideration from all of the aforementioned publications.