Should the U.S. ban menthol cigarettes?

More than 80% of Black smokers smoke menthol cigarettes.

The FDA is now pushing to ban the products, saying it will prevent death and disease.

Today, On Point: Should the U.S. ban menthol cigarettes?

Phillip Gardiner, co-chair of the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council. Public health activist.

Dr. Alan Blum, director of the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society. Gerald Leon Wallace Endowed Chair of Family Medicine at the University of Alabama School of Medicine. Family physician.

Peter Brennan, executive director of the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association.

Part I

DEBORAH BECKER: For decades, menthol cigarettes were widely promoted.

CIGARETTE ADVERTISEMENT: He knows it, and she knows it. How about you? Still messing with hot tasting cigarettes? Come on, you know what to do behind that. Come on up to Kool's. Kool's and only Kool's. We'll come on with the taste of extra coolness.

Come to the Kool's. Come on up to the Kool's, baby.

BECKER: This is a 1969 radio ad for the menthol cigarette brand, Kool. Before these ads were banned, going back to the 1950s, the American tobacco industry aggressively marketed menthol cigarettes to African Americans. More than 80% of Black smokers smoke them, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency also says Black Americans are more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to have smoking related health problems. Federal officials are considering a nationwide ban on menthol cigarettes. Two states, Massachusetts and California, already have menthol bans.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a proposed ban in 2022. It pointed to studies that show getting rid of menthols could prevent hundreds of thousands of smoking related deaths among Black Americans. But that proposed ban still needs final approval from the Biden administration, and the White House has delayed action on that twice.

Earlier this month, anti-smoking groups filed a lawsuit to try to speed up the process. Phillip Gardiner is with one of those groups. He's co-chair of the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, and he joins us now. Welcome to On Point, Phillip.

PHILLIP GARDINER: Thank you for having me.

BECKER: So let's just start by talking broadly about this idea of a ban on menthol cigarettes.

Why should they be banned and how would it work?

GARDINER: The reason, look, the original sin was in 2009 when the FDA took over the regulation of cigarettes. They eliminated 13 flavors from all cigarettes. The only flavor that was left in was menthol. And as you've correctly pointed out, and I can in more detail, the only thing that was left in was menthol cigarettes, which are disproportionately marketed to African Americans.

It was essentially a slap in the face toward us, and we've been fighting against that ever since. Let's be clear about the ban. And this might get to the root of the question. The ban is not about individual possession. People aren't going to be stopped and checked and see if they are smoking or possessing a menthol cigarette.

This is to stop the production of this. This is to stop the distribution of this and stop the retail sale of this.

BECKER: We have a little bit of a clip that I'd like to play of President Obama back from 2009, what you referred to. Then President Obama signed what was called then the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

And that measure, as you said, banned flavored cigarettes with the exception of menthol. But it also gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate the tobacco industry. And this was how President Obama described why he was giving the FDA this authority. Let's listen.

BARACK OBAMA: Kids today don't just start smoking for no reason.

They're aggressively targeted as customers by the tobacco industry. They're exposed to a constant and insidious barrage of advertising, where they live, where they learn, and where they play. Most insidiously, they are offered products with flavorings that mask the taste of tobacco and make it even more tempting.

We've known about this for decades, but despite the best efforts and good progress made by so many leaders and advocates with us today. The tobacco industry and its special interest lobbying have generally won the day up on the hill.

BECKER: Phillip Gardiner, I'm wondering, was it special interest lobbying that stopped menthol from being included in that flavor ban back in 2009?

GARDINER: Indeed, it was. And it's unfortunate that President Obama said they're going to get rid of all these flavors that attract people, but they leave the main flavor, menthol, in there. I can't say it any stronger. The tobacco industry and southern senators coupled with certain health groups coming together and saying, yeah, let's pass this new act.

But at the same time, let's exclude menthol. I think, frankly, that was the original sin. That's why we're in this fight today.

BECKER: But so what was, I'm sorry to interrupt, but what was the reasoning then? That menthol wasn't really a flavor? What was the justification for that?

GARDINER: The reason was, let me, I'm going to put it, going to get, cut to the chase.

The most recent figures I've seen, and I'm sure there's even better figures, in a 2018 report, the tobacco industry in the United States was somewhere in the neighborhood of a $221 billion industry. Of that, 35% was about menthol cigarettes. So we're talking billions of dollars, somewhere in the neighborhood of $30, $40 billion.

There was no way in hell that the tobacco industry was going to do nothing but put pressure on the administration and that's what's gone on, whether it was the Bush administration, whether it was the Obama administration, whether it was the Trump administration, or whether it's the Biden administration, they've had an inordinate impact.

BECKER: And essentially saying, we already have this product on the market that's responsible for a huge number of people using it, and you can't just ban it quickly, you'd have to do something else. I just think they had to have said something to justify this.

GARDINER: No, they've not said anything and it's unfortunate that the tobacco industry actually, along with certain African American groups telling the Biden administration that they shouldn't go forward with this ban. This is why we refiled the lawsuit. Look, as a public health doctor, I can't think of anything more important in saving Black lives than getting menthol cigarettes off the market.

BECKER: Explain to us a little bit. The FDA had issued the proposed rule, as we mentioned. The White House had set a deadline for last year, extended the deadline to this March. That deadline came and went, and so then you filed suit and what is the suit?

GARDINER: No ... we should back up just a little.

BECKER: Okay. Okay. Okay.

GARDINER: When the FDA in 2009 kept menthol on the marketplace, a number of us, particularly from the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, went back to Washington and actually spoke to the Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee of the FDA, that these things should be removed.

In fact, the report that came out from the Tips Act, that's what it was called, said that the removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit the public's health. Two years go by and nothing that takes place, The Public Health Law Center in Minnesota files what is called a citizen petition, calling, saying that you're dragging your feet.

You need to respond to the report, this goes on. In 2016, when the rest of cigarette products, excuse me, the rest of tobacco products are brought under FDA, or what they call, deem them under their control. There was a report that they should remove menthol and all flavors from all new tobacco products, whether it was e-cigarettes, whether it was hookah, whether it was little cigars.

That 16-page report was redlined by folks in the FDA. We, of course, came to find out later that was members of the tobacco industry there. To the point where finally we, my organization, along with Action on Smoking and Health, the American Medical Association, and the National Medical Association, The National Organization of Black Doctors, filed suit in 2020, demanding that something be done about that.

It was only that suit that led to the FDA proclamating a rule in 2022 saying that they would do something by 2023. Of course, 2023 and August came and they did nothing. They said then by the end of the year, of course, the end of the year, in December of 2023, they said they'd do nothing, but they would do something in March of 2024.

Here we are in April. We knew they weren't going to do nothing in April of, I mean in March of 2024, that's while on the second of April this month, those groups that I just mentioned, refile the lawsuit against the FDA.

BECKER: And the suit basically says FDA enact this proposed ban.

GARDINER: Yeah, look, and then it's our understanding.

And this is just our understanding, is that people in the FDA want to move forward with this, people in their tobacco control section want to move forward with it. It's waiting, it's Biden and his hench people that are the ones holding this up.

BECKER: We should say On Point did reach out to the White House about the proposed ban.

And a spokesperson told us that rulemaking is underway, and the White House had no comment. But why do you think the White House is dragging its feet here?

GARDINER: Rulemaking is underway. It's been 15 years since 2009. In fact, if you look back, they've attempted to start a rule around menthol under the Obama administration, under the Trump administration, and now under the Biden administration.

That's just words. I think the punchline is the Biden administration was told by representatives of the tobacco industry and of certain Black organizations like the National Newspaper Association, which Ben Chavis runs, who takes money directly from the tobacco industry, that if you were to ban menthol cigarettes, you would lose Black votes.

So this is our sense that they're trying to push this down the road, and hopefully win the election and then take this matter up. But that's just my sense of it.

BECKER: Is that a legitimate concern? Do you think that Biden could?

GARDINER: I don't think Black people are going to vote for Donald Trump because they can't have menthol cigarettes.

Part II

BECKER: We should say we reached out to the country's two largest tobacco companies about our show today.

Philip Morris, which is owned by Altria, and R. J. Reynolds, both declined to be on the program. In an emailed statement, a Reynolds company spokesperson said, quote, "A menthol ban would fuel yet another extensive illicit market for unregulated and potentially more dangerous products in the U.S." The statement also said that bans are not an effective way to get people to stop smoking.

Phillip Gardiner. I wonder what do you take of that statement from the tobacco company?

GARDINER: It's obviously to be. And yeah, I'm Dr. Phillip Gardiner. Someone pointed out that I should say that, firstly the Senate would lead to a massive illicit market. Let's be clear.

The only way there could be an illicit market is if the tobacco industry continued to produce it. If they stopped producing it, there would be no basis for it. Moreover, we see in places like Canada where they've outlawed it back in 2018. And I think it went into effect in 2020. Here it's 2024. No illicit market has arisen.

This is just not true. And also, there's existing data and studies coming out of the CDC that shows when you ban products that are bad for you, particularly cigarettes, that it leads to less use of these products. They're completely wrong on all these issues. No illicit market has arisen.

Let me tell you what's so problematic about this. The rule that has actually been put forward by the FDA said that would get rid of menthol as a characterizing flavor, but you should be aware that menthol is in most tobacco products. Whether it's chewing tobacco, pipe, tobacco, cigars, or even, Marlboro's or Kent's, it's not characterized.

You can't taste it, but it's in there. So that's still going on. And then to add insult to injury, the rule that is being proposed says that you would stop the production of menthol cigarettes for domestic use, that you could still produce it for export. So the rule, though it would be very helpful, has got serious flaws itself in terms of this.

BECKER: I just want to get back to something briefly that we were saying before we took a break, and that was regarding the White House not taking action on this and the questions about whether that's because this is an election year and how it might affect Black voters. And the Reverend Al Sharpton has spoken about this proposed ban on menthol cigarettes. And his organization, the National Action Network in October of 2019, said a lot about this during an event. Sharpton's group didn't respond to On Point's emailed requests for an interview, but the National Action Network has reportedly previously received funding from the tobacco industry and Sharpton has come out about this ban and this is what he says.

Let's listen.

REV. AL SHARPTON: No question about it: Smoking is bad for your health. No question about it. But if it's a health issue, why ain't you banning all cigarettes? (CHEERS) But no, no, we, we bannin’ it. It's because most Blacks, you know, smoke it. Why don't you ban them all? So in other words, whites know how much to smoke and we don't know how much to smoke?

BECKER: Phillip Gardiner, I'm wondering when you hear those comments how do they affect things, the debate really, about menthol bans?

What do you say to the argument that why is the government thinking about taking away a product that Black people enjoy when the government's not doing the same thing?

GARDINER: And he did, and you are too, standing the issue on its head. Taking away menthol cigarettes is being racist or prejudicial toward Black people.

Look, menthol cigarettes are the number one killer of Black people. That's what Al Sharpton should be talking about. Al Sharpton and National Action Network have been taking money from the tobacco industry, but dating back 20 years. They used to be an openly outward sponsor of The National Action Network's annual meeting.

They've gone into somewhat hiding now, but they've been taking, they've been, look, they've been taking money from the tobacco industry for a very long time. Let me just say this more broadly. I, as a public health doctor, would like to see cigarettes removed from the marketplace. But I suggest to you that the first step in doing something like that is to get candy flavored poisons, candy flavors out of poison.

Nicotine is an insecticide. It's a poison. And putting things that make it taste good is a problem. That's why they got rid of the things back in 2009. That's why they should get rid of menthol now. And since menthol are disproportionately smoked by Black folks, it would have a positive effect on the lives and health of Black people.

BECKER: Why don't we just briefly lay out what we know about the use of menthol cigarettes and products by Black people and why does it seem to be that Black Americans prefer to use menthol cigarettes?

GARDINER: I like to call it what I call that, the African Americanization of menthol cigarettes. You might look at it this way.

In the 1950s, only about 5% of African Americans smoked menthol cigarettes. By 1968 that had almost tripled to 14%. By 1976 that it tripled again to 42%. Today, as you pointed out, over 80% of African Americans who smoke, use menthol cigarette products. This is not by accident. This is by predatory marketing.

It became look at it this way when African Americans returned from World War II and moved into segregated situations in the north and many people coming from the South were moved into segregated situations. There are new products needed to be developed. We saw new hairsprays come on the market.

We saw new food choices come on. And what we also began to see is a targeting of these new quote unquote menthols, healthier cigarettes to Black folks.

BECKER: They were labeled as healthier?

GARDINER: I'm sorry?

BECKER: They were labeled as healthier?

GARDINER: Oh, that was part of the appeal that this is not as harsh.

They're much more tasteful. They're going to soothe your throat. I have a whole all sorts of things. That they began to play with, but then they even went a step further. Not only is it healthier for you, it's cool. It's something that you can do. They began to use our idiom.

They had people with wearing afros, wearing what we call dashikis and beads to sell it. They began to sell it. They began to put money into the cool jazz festival, into the Newport Jazz Festival. They dumped money all into our community, over a long period of time that led to where we are today, where the majority of African Americans who smoke use these products.

This is no mistake. By the by the early 2000s, if in the '60s and '70s and '80s, they were talking about jazz festivals, in the early 2000's, now they're talking about hip hop events that are used, where menthol is put forward. So they've been very clear on this for, unfortunately, for a very long time.

BECKER: I want to bring another voice into the conversation as well. Dr. Alan Blum, who directs the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society. He's with us on the line. Dr. Blum, welcome to On Point.

ALAN BLUM: Thank you, Deborah. And it's good to hear Phil.

BECKER: Yeah, I wonder if you could expand also on what we know.

We know, we heard from Phil just now about the targeted marketing in the Black community to try to hook Black smokers on menthol cigarettes. I wonder what you can tell us about what we've learned since then, and also the health effects and what do we know about that?

BLUM: I think we ought to back up just a little bit.

I should say where I come from, this is the 60th anniversary this year of the landmark Surgeon General's report on smoking and health issued by Alabamian Luther Terry. And you'd think in 60 years ... this wasn't the first time we knew about the dangers of smoking. It was the actually end point.

When the government couldn't deny any longer that they had to do something about what was becoming the leading cause of lung cancer, and we would soon learn heart disease in the United States. Even then, we were sensing that there was a disproportionate impact on African Americans. But the point being is, here we are 60 years later and we're dithering and talking about whether we should ban menthol.

With all due respect to Dr. Gardiner, I think this is an extremely symbolic issue and it's somewhat of a minor issue compared to the overall context of what should have been done and where we are today. So if you step back and say first of all, what is menthol? It's not a candy flavoring. That's a term that's used by opponents of menthol to say, Oh, it's going to get kids.

You can call it what you want, but what it is a chemical anesthetic that like Novocain will deaden the throat. And make the person who's smoking it create the sensation that it's cooler. Cooler than what? The fresh air or 800 degrees worth of tobacco smoke, it's an illusion, but it's not just a flavoring.

And this is the game that unfortunately the opponents of the tobacco industry, and again, I consider myself an opponent and also a proponent of a menthol ban, but it could have been done, as Dr. Gardiner has said. Not only 15 years ago, but long before that, and the reason why the FDA did not initially ban this is because Philip Morris, who was a co-author of the bill with the campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said if you want to include a menthol ban as they did a clove ban, we're going to not support the bill.

What you heard just now is correct. The leading supporter of the bill to regulate tobacco products was the Philip Morris Tobacco Company. And you say, that's crazy. I never knew that. Why would a tobacco company support the FDA bill? Because Congress did not give the FDA in this, I think, ridiculous bill called the Family Preserve, Smoking Prevention Act.

It gave good feelings to all of us that, oh, now we're going to do something, but it grandfathered in Marlboro. So in the piece that my colleague Mike Siegel and I wrote in the Lancet, we called it the Marlboro Preservation Act.

BECKER: (LAUGHS)

BLUM: It's absurd. You have a product that's killing half a million people a year and you put it in the same agency that regulates cancer chemotherapy drugs, you can pull one of those drugs off the market if it kills 10 people, but you can't pull a product, cigarettes, which is the leading tobacco product off the market for killing half a million people a year.

GARDINER: Alan, I think not only are you spot on, I just want to emphasize the point you just made that menthol, I call it the altered candy flavoring because it is essentially an anesthetic. And when putting an anesthetic in something that will kill you is just outrageous.

Just outrageous.

BLUM: I agree.

BECKER: But it's an issue, I would think people would argue, it's an issue of choice. If I as a consumer know the health risks, I see the Surgeon General's black box warning and I decide I'm going to smoke this anyway. And I'm going to smoke menthols because yes, it is cool or easier or whatever.

Why should the government? It's not the same as a cancer drug, right? It's not the same, because that I'm taking for a specific reason for my health. This is something I'm doing that is a known vice. I'm doing it anyway. And why can't I have the right to do that?

BLUM: The FDA right now is spending more of its time, effort, and money, and by the way, I don't think people realize, where does the FDA get its money from to do research on cigarettes or other tobacco?

They get it from the tobacco companies. This is how pharmaceutical research is done by the FDA. They get it from the very companies that they're regulating. And you could say that all of us are getting tobacco money. It's not just the people like Sharpton who are taking money from them. I think we need to go back on a few issues.

I was on an FDA committee, and you quickly see it's the committees that they have of so-called experts are not really running the show. It's the staff that run the show. And sad to say, there has been already in just the 15 years this agency has been in existence, the tobacco products, whatever they call it.

There already is a revolving door between that organization and Altria, you have people who were just on the FDA, the head of their cardiovascular science is now working for Philip Morris. You have the recent head of the whole organization, Mitch Zeller, who is now on the board of a nicotine inhaling company.

They have turned this around. Thanks to the industry's brilliance of becoming a scientific company. That's right. The tobacco companies, if you read their journals today, they're the science people. They're saying, no, we need to look at science. And they're doing what they did 50, 60 years ago by hiring the experts to confuse the whole issue.

We need more research. That's their whole game. We need more research.

GARDINER: Look, we've got plenty of research. But directly to your question, Deborah, the question, the federal government is in a position to save Black lives and save other lives. We have many things that you can and should do.

You have to wear seat belts. It's against the law to do. You have to wear helmets on motorcycles. There's many interventions. You have to take lead out of paint. So the idea that someone doesn't have, you don't have free choice. We shouldn't have free choice to kill yourself. Let me just say that.

BLUM: I just think that this issue should be reframed into one of addiction.

This is a nicotine addiction and what the tobacco industry today. Let's talk about what they're doing today. They're not just opposing a menthol band. They're thinking well ahead of us. They're thriving. As you pointed out, 200 and some odd billion-dollar business. How is that? 60 years later, we got COVID and we attacked it.

We got a vaccine out within a year. Every single administration has punted on smoking. There's been no money putting into this issue. The first time the CDC ever put any money into mass media, which is where we have failed, was in 2012 when they did this incredibly good tips for smokers' campaign.

They give the government credit, but the government through every single administration, Democrat or Republican, has done virtually nothing on smoking and neither has the AMA, Phil talks about the AMA opposing menthol. The AMA was in cahoots with the tobacco companies for decades after the surgeon general's report.

So was the NAACP. I think we've got a reckoning, and we need to look back and understand why we have failed. This is not, Phil. I just want to say. I just want to say --

GARDINER: Alan, in all fairness.

BLUM: Phil, this is not, no, I'm going to make my point. I want to make my point.

BECKER: One minute. One minute. Go ahead. I'm going to give you 30 seconds and then I'm going to give Phil 30 seconds and we're going to have to take a break.

BLUM: I think this is just something that is not a public health triumph. What we've done with smoking by reducing it. It's a public health failure, partly because we've allowed the industry always to be in the driver's seat.

GARDINER: Okay, so look, I don't, Alan, I don't disagree with what you just said.

I do think there's been some movement and we have to be clear on that. The NAACP, which used to take money from the tobacco industry, doesn't anymore. And now comes out openly and speaks against that. And you need to follow that and be aware of that. It's true that the AMA had for years been in support of tobacco industry, but today finds themselves actually suing the tobacco industry and moving away from that.

So things, so some things have changed.

Part III

BECKER: There are menthol bans in place in two states in the U.S., Massachusetts is one of them. In the Massachusetts, the rule took effect in 2020, and it bans not just menthol, but all flavored tobacco products. To talk about this, we reached out to Peter Brennan, who's head of the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association.

That group represents about 7,000 convenience stores throughout New England. And he says the menthol ban has resulted in big losses for Massachusetts.

PETER BRENNAN: We're down $146 million for a year in excess tax revenues. So from the state's perspective, it's been an enormous money loser. We've also seen an increase in crime.

We have seen an increase in smuggling. We've seen a massive increase in seizures of illegal products.

BECKER: But Brennan says neighboring states, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, saw a bump in sales after the Massachusetts ban. The year after that took effect, he says, New Hampshire sold an additional 23 million packs of menthol cigarettes, and Rhode Island, 5 million more.

Brennan opposes a nationwide menthol ban, as you can expect. He says it would be bad for convenience store owners who get about a quarter of their in-store revenue from tobacco sales. And depend on cigarettes to get customers in the door. Brennan worries that banning menthols won't stop people from smoking them, it'll just push that business underground.

BRENNAN: People are going to find, if they want the product, they're going to find a way to get it. So if you have a nationwide ban on menthol cigarettes, you're still going to have online activity. You're still going to have cross border activity. You're still going to have a product that's available at Indian reservations.

So how are you going to keep that off of the streets and where it can be regulated, taxed, and sold in a regulated marketplace? I don't think you can. It's better to tax these products, keep them legal, and put the money from the tax into cessation efforts and education efforts.

BECKER: That was Peter Brennan, Executive Director of the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, and I wonder if I could just Go to you first, Alan Blum.

What do you think about this argument that bans will create illicit markets for these types of menthol products?

BLUM: Thanks, Deborah. Actually, this is the same old argument that the tobacco industry, which is exactly who's written that argument for Mr. Brennan, was saying about taxes. And you notice the first thing out of his mouth was money.

Oh, the state lost money, because people weren't buying enough cigarettes. He's absolutely right. My colleague Dr. Ed Anselm in New York once said the most addictive thing about tobacco is money, and that's not just referring to the tobacco industry. That's referring to the anti-smoking movement, people who are dependent on maybe perpetuating this issue, with all due respect, because we get grants.

And I think it's absurd that we're not looking at our own house and how poorly we've done to counteract these bogus arguments like Mr. Brennan's. Oh, that we're going to create smuggling and so forth. I think if we had mass media and used it to any effect, and there has been money privately pouring into this issue from Bloomberg and others, but one thing they've never used the money for is paid mass media.

And this is the tragedy of this whole issue. We've got 360,000 papers on smoking since the Surgeon General, I'm not making that figure up. Dr. Koop in 1985 said, we have 50,000 studies. What more do we need to know? Instead, what do academicians and public health bureaucrats do? Is spend all their time day and night churning out more figures and more policy papers saying the government must do this.

So I think, I don't believe in government solutions to smoking. I believe in laughing these pushers out of town and laughing at people like Mr. Brennan who think that the government's going to suffer for not having enough money coming in from selling cigarettes. This is absurd.

BECKER: But you said a ban would be largely symbolic.

That's how we started the conversation. Why?

BLUM: I think if you really want to look at what's killing people, it's smoking, obviously. But clearly, we talk about, oh no, we can't ban cigarettes because that would really lead to problems, just as prohibition of alcohol did. But instead, just step back just a bit and see what is the cigarette made of.

When cigarettes began, which was, believe it or not, only at the turn of the 20th century. Around 1901, the tobacco products that were in use was mostly cigars and spitting tobacco. Cigarettes really bloomed in beginning of World War I. And just before when camels came out and really created a palatable product that gave people a whole different sensation.

So I think that we look at what cigarettes were, they didn't have what's called a filter. How did the filter get on cigarettes? It came out because in the 1950s, we saw, Oh my God, this stuff causes lung cancer. And the public was beginning to say, I don't want to get that, whatever that is. So the tobacco companies came up with the filter, which has absolutely no health benefit whatsoever.

It makes people think it's safer. And so we talk about cigarettes today, 99% of them are filtered brands. Filters actually, you have to suck through that filter product to get to the nicotine, and that increases your risk for heart disease. And when I say this to my patients, they can't believe it.

They've never heard that before, because we've done a crappy job of educating the public about what a ripoff cigarettes really are.

GARDINER: There's another aspect to this, Alan. I think your point's well taken. That the major source of pollution around the world are cigarette butts.

BLUM: And again --

GARDINER: It's exposure. I just want to bring that in.

BLUM: But the way you get to people, Phil, the way you get to people about the butt wastage is to say that the birds and the fish are eating them. Honestly, you can't get the pollution. We've got a plastic problem that's going, I hope that Deborah has another program on the plastic issue, but we've got to put smoking in perspective, just as we did when COVID came out.

Let's face it. We've got emerging diseases that used to, we thought were eradicated. Let's look at obesity. Let's look at digital media addiction. We've got so many things now on our plate that I think menthol falls way down in that category.

BECKER: But also, why not? Why? Why not all cigarettes, though?

I think that's a big argument, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

GARDINER: Before we leave. What has happened, the tobacco industry now that there's actually some momentum to get menthol and flavors off the market, has come up with what are we calling now? These new non menthol products, right? Non menthol cools and non-menthol Newport's.

And these are essentially putting cooling agents that are not menthol, but that are chemical concoctions that actually have a numbing and cooling effect. That's the new thing. As soon as there's a national ban on menthol, we're going to see these pop up all over the country. And that fight will have to then continue.

I don't think menthol and smoking falls far down on the list at all. I think it's right up there at the top.

BLUM: You're proving my point.

BECKER: Go ahead, Phil. Did you want to finish?

GARDINER: No, you guys go ahead.

BECKER: I just wonder why not though all cigarettes?

GARDINER: I agree that what is being talked about, the end game about, look, we live in a world where it's been normalized.

That if you use this product, the way it's directed, it will kill you. We have to work, bend, push back about that. I'm just suggesting that the first step in pushing back against that is getting rid of candy flavors, menthol, other cooling agents out of it, as the first step.

BECKER: And if we do look at states where this has happened, even countries where this has happened, I wonder, Alan Blum, what do we know, what does the research tell us about menthol bans in Massachusetts and California and it's a little bit different when you've got a state that maybe is a 20 minute, 10 minute drive away, where menthol is accessible, but just once you cross that border, it isn't.

So I think there are some perhaps different circumstances in New England, but what do we know in terms of what this ban, a ban like this has done for smoking rates and for health? And also, what we haven't mentioned here is also young people, a high number of young smokers use tobacco menthol tobacco products.

BLUM: One of the reasons I got into this issue in the 1970s, I wrote my first editorial though when I was a high school senior in 1964, which gives you the idea I'm one of the longest running acts in this whole field, is that there were billboards disproportionately in African American neighborhoods. They weren't in white suburban neighborhoods.

And so we forget about that. We forget about the enormous influence that the Black newspaper publishers had. A hundred Black newspaper publishers covetous of tobacco money. And Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP would say why don't they go after the white publishers like Time Magazine for taking the money?

I agree with him. But the point is, we've come to this issue late, and now we talk about all the little signs in the stories. That's nothing compared to what we used to see all over. So we've made some progress in getting rid of the billboards. But the fact of the matter is, we ourselves, in the so called, I hate to use this word, tobacco control world, because it sounds like mosquito control, it's not controlling tobacco, it's not controlling human beings.

It's trying to get rid of this crap. And we're not degrading it as we should. This is dead leaves. This is just a junk product that costs a quarter to make and five bucks to sell. It's something that can be ridiculed. People who smoke don't even know what's in their cigarette.

And I think that we've failed, as a sense of humor. We haven't ridiculed them. Instead of calling them Marlboro, we should be calling them Barfboro. We should be laughing at these people, the emphysema slims and so forth that we've done over these years. But I think that the people who are so concerned about smoking, as I am, they're just so serious about it that they forget the larger picture.

And I think the industry is taking advantage of that by always being cool, calm, and collected, paying off the experts. And as with taxes, they know that if you raise a tax in one state or you ban something in one state, the neighboring state will easily take over that consumption. I don't see this as making a huge difference.

I think it remains a very good symbolic effort to ban menthol, but I don't see this unless we start thinking ahead, instead of just looking at the moment today.

BECKER: So we don't, do we know, does it affect rates of smoking,, if a ban is in place or does it change?

BLUM: I don't think we have that information.

BECKER: We don't. Okay.

BLUM: And I don't think, for instance, we, frankly, I just, again, want to analogize. I don't think we have the information on legalizing cannabis of what that's going to be doing. I hate to say that, because I certainly don't want to criminalize it, but that's another African American issue. If I dare speak about blunts, which is another form of tobacco where marijuana is stuck in, I get yelled at because, oh no, you're not taking consideration. That's part of more of an African American society than the non others that use blunts as well.

I guess it's really something we should step back and say, where does this issue fit in? And why haven't we done this already? Why do we rely on government and the FDA to bail us out when we have failed?

BECKER: And Phil, you mentioned this way around a ban, if you will, this preemptive move to have a non-menthol, which for the life of me, I cannot understand.

But when we look at some of these products and the way perhaps that any kind of ban might be skirted, is it worth it to even try to approach this issue this way? Might there be something else? And we haven't even gotten into the conversation about vaping and what might happen with vaping and flavored vapes and menthol vapes and what do we know about the dangers of those, right?

GARDINER: Vaping is just another form of, this is just this is menthol 2.0 with the new non menthol menthols, with it being used in vapes, being used in chews, being used in all sorts of products. This is a billion-dollar industry that needs to be overturned. I don't think Alan, I don't think the problem is so much with us.

I think the government does need to do more. There's even rumor. And let me just say this, there's even rumor that they're going to come out with a menthol ban this weekend sometime. That's what people have been telling me. If that happens, it's going to be a very weak thing. And we're going to have to fight against that.

But to your point, Deborah, on the vaping products. The vaping products are just another way to deliver nicotine in a, what do you call it, in a flavored way, you're talking about putting something that gets aerosolized that then goes into your lungs.

BECKER: That is bad for you. Look, we have vaping products. We have hookah products. You guys were mentioning blunts while I was off there for a moment. All of these things need to be dealt with. Yeah, we asked our listeners to weigh in on this. And I want to play a voice message that we received from On Point listener, Linda Radke.

She lives in Minnesota. She says she smoked since she was 15 years old and she's 54 now, longtime smoker. And she started with menthol cigarettes when she was in high school, but she has concerns about a ban. Let's listen.

LINDA RADKE: I don’t agree with the ban on menthol cigarettes. I think that’s an overreach, interfering with people’s whatever they choose to smoke or not smoke, you know. It’s no different than the surgeon’s warning on cigarettes in general about the damage to your health, you know, and people still smoke ‘em anyway, whether they’re menthol or non-menthols.

BECKER: I wonder, Phillip Gardiner, what do you say to folks like Linda who say, this is government overreach. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. People drink. Go ahead.

GARDINER: Yeah, no, this was mentioned earlier in terms of the government overreach and the government shouldn't do this or shouldn't do that.

Sometimes the government can do things that will protect you, whether it's like I mentioned, seatbelts or wearing helmets or removing lead from paint, there are many things the government can do that actually are beneficial to you. In fact, I think part of our conversation here is the government should be doing more.

They've been so infested by the tobacco industry that they do very little. So what I say to her is that there needs to be. And we haven't even mentioned this, there needs to be cessation services provided to people that you can afford, that are culturally appropriate and language specific. And look at it that way, that people, being happy that you want to continue to smoke is not a good thing.

Someone has to point out to you that you're killing yourself.

BECKER: And just we have about a minute left. So I just want to say, if you could just summarize for us what, if we do, in fact, hear something about a proposed ban this weekend, as is rumored. What happens with this lawsuit? What's the status of this right now?

GARDINER: The lawsuit will continue to go forward until an actual law, until there's something on the books. We've had too many. Oh, this might happen, and oh, we may be doing this. I remember back under the Trump administration, oh, we're going to get rid of all flavors, and until it, until there's something actually concrete, the lawsuit stands.