In a statement, the food and drug administration predicts that banning menthol, the last allowable
flavor in cigarettes, and banning all flavors in cigars will help save lives, particularly
among those disproportionately affected by these deadly products. Who are those disproportionately
affected and with menthol accounting for one third of all cigarettes sales, how will big
tobacco fight back? Let's ask attorney Sara Papantonio of the Levin Papantonio Rafferty
law firm. Sara, right off the bat, this looks contentious. Proponents of this ban point
to those disproportionally affected as the 85 to 90% of African American smokers and
vapers preferring menthol products. While opponents, civil rights groups, fear over
policing of black communities. Lots to unpack here, Sara. Where do you see all this headed?
We'll to start Holland. This ban has the potential to encourage nearly 1 million people to quit
smoking. That's the potential to save a lot of lives just by banning a flavor of tobacco.
So this shouldn't be spun as a racial injustice issue, this should be viewed as a great step
forward to promoting public health and preventing unnecessary deaths among minority communities.
But the real reason that minorities are being disproportionately affected by this menthol
ban is because minority communities are being disproportionately targeted by the tobacco
industry. The tobacco industry aggressively markets to these communities because they're
one of the last strongholds that this industry relies on to make their money. So, honestly
Holland, I wouldn't be surprised if there were actually tobacco industry that was pushing
this racial narrative, be these, because these companies are going to do whatever they can
to keep cigarettes on the market. But we got to break down exactly how this
menthol ban works, because like you said, many fear that the results of this will be
over-policing of the black community. But that's not really going to be the case based
on my evaluation of it. And that's because this ban is enforceable only against manufacturers
and distributors and wholesale sellers of cigarettes. It's not going to be enforceable
against the individual holders of cigarettes. So what we're really going to see is over-policing
of the tobacco industry, which is good, rather than over-policing of individuals, which is
going to be a huge step in the right direction right now.
I'm glad you said spun because back in olden times, when there were billboards by the side
of the road for cigarettes, you saw the Newport billboards in the hood and the Marlboro billboards
elsewhere. So I think you put your finger on it when you said spun. Several years ago,
responding to public outcry, the food and drug administration banned cartridge based
fruit or mint flavored e-cigarettes after waffling on the issue for several months,
then president Trump F bombed his health and human services secretary in the oval office.
And after meeting with representatives of the e-cigarette industry who were concerned
about their industry and cautioned by his campaign, that vaping was popular in certain
key States, Trump went swamp speak proclaiming, we're going to protect our families, our children,
and we're going to protect the industry. Just this past March, Allegheny County became the
second County in Pennsylvania to ban e-cigarette use in public spaces, to applause from the
university of Pittsburgh medical center, health experts there and elsewhere dispute manufacturer's
claims that vaping is a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes and that vaping helped
smokers quit. And that exhaled vapor does not contain the same dangerous toxic gases
as second-hand tobacco smoke. Sara, an appeals court in Indiana struck down part of a similar
law there. With all the big money that big tobacco can spend on lawyers, are bans like
these just inherently fragile? Well, first I got to point out exactly how
this industry is spinning the narrative, like we said. Vaping is not a safer alternative
to cigarettes. In fact, what we found is that there can be up to eight times the amount
of nicotine in a single puff of an e-cigarette versus that of a regular cigarette. And that's
not even to mention all of the carcinogens that are found in this vaping liquid. So it's
not a safe, safer alternative to the traditional cigarette. It's just a narrative that this
industry is spinning and they continue to spin this narrative because they're so desperate
to create this new generation of addicts, right, that's the classic tobacco business
model that we've seen over the years. Let's get people addicted, but specifically let's
get children addicted. Let's get them addicted with that flavored nicotine. So e-cigarette
manufacturers are pushing hundreds of thousands of dollars into schools in an effort to promote
vaping. They're telling people it's safe and it's
become a serious issue among teens. We see, we see the increase in vaping rise substantially.
So luckily States are pushing this legislation because they recognize that e-cigarette manufacturers
are targeting our children. They're targeting young kids, middle school kids. So we're going
to continue to see cities fighting back and States fighting back and that's good, but
not all of them are going to be successful because you know, it really is going to just
depend on the nature of the legislation that's proposed and it's going to depend on the jurisdiction
that it's in. And of course, it's going to depend on whether or not we can overcome the
thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, that these industries fund in
their legal team to try to overcome these hurdles.
Yeah. You know, that brings to mind something else because recreational cannabis is now
legal in what 17 States. I speak to you from Providence, Rhode Island, where up and down
interstate 95, there is a billboard war going between the just over the state line in Massachusetts
weed stores. And no government seems to be resisting this because everyone needs the
tax money. Do you foresee a backlash against legal weed?
It's, it's all going to depend on what the federal government does. Like we see when
you're traveling over interstate borders, it does become sort of an issue because, you
know, if it's legal in one state and not legal in another, then you run into interstate commerce
issues. But it's really going to have to come down to uniformity across the States when
we find a solution. I think like you said, States are so willing to accept it because,
because they're seeing huge profit rises in medical marijuana. So it's really going to
see, it'd be interesting to see what the federal government decides and how this issue develops
over time. Yeah. And at the moment these weed retailers
have a real problem because the banks don't want to do business with them. Sara Papantonio,
Levin Papantonio Rafferty. Thank you as always for stepping into the Big Picture.