Menthol used to hook kids
Categories: Teens & tweens, Health & safety, Life & style, In the news, Environment
Say what you will about a smoker's right to light up in his car or her own home, but I think we can all agree that underage smoking is wrong, wrong, wrong. a new study suggests that menthol cigarettes are specifically formulated to attract and snag young smokers (and the keep the adult smokers hooked for life).
Menthol cigarettes are the minty ones, you know, the ones most like candy. they're also easier for a young system to tolerate than regular cigarettes. According to a new study out of Harvard, manufacturers of menthol cigarettes are using this information to nab the "vulnerable population." As smokers get used to menthol, like with pretty much anything else, they naturally prefer a stronger flavor or sensation.
The research also indicated that nearly fifty percent of smokers between the ages of twelve (yes, you read that right, TWELVE) and seventeen prefer menthol cigarettes. Menthol cigarettes make up about 28% of overall cigarette sales per year. There's no need to do the math here to realize that a big group of kids is smoking these cigarettes. Those who participated in the study are urging for stronger legislation. Phillip Morris, the company who owns Marlboro Milds, a milder form of menthol cigarette, deny such allegations, as does its parent company, Atria. Lorillard, owner of the best-selling Newport brand of menthol cigarettes, also denied they lure young smokers.
Cig pic by wetwebwork.
Recent Posts
- Bedtime routines - What's yours? (9/05/2008)
- Chicago students skip school in protest (9/05/2008)
- A convention is NO place for a baby! (9/05/2008)
- What women want (9/05/2008)
- Colin Firth finds kids "loathsome" (except his own, of course) (9/05/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jan Bay 7-20-2008 @ 2:27PM
Big tobacco has no shame. They sell potentially dangerous products and the government seems to look the other way.
I read that in Mississippi that medicaid is suffering a huge budget deficiency and rather than raise taxes on cigarettes the governor Haley Barbour wants to raise hospital taxes. I'm not an economics major, but am I right in thinking that if hospitals have to pay more fees that they will in turn raise prices which will drain the medicaid system further resulting in even more problems for healthcare for poor kids?
One might ask why the reluctance to tax tobacco? Could it be that it has something to do with politicians who once were lobbyists for big tobacco?
It's been bothering me that I'm starting to see cigarettes appear in movies more often lately. I have heard that the companies pay have their products appear in films as a means of promotion. How do you fight that?
Every time I see a person smoking in public I point out to my oldest daughter how the smokers are poisoning themselves as well as the air for others. I hope that the message sticks.
Jan from http://www.unique-baby-gear-ideas.com/
Reply
Mihir 7-21-2008 @ 11:57AM
actually, why not increase taxes on alcohol? it's a much bigger revenue stream than cigarettes.
The majority of states have a much higher tax on cigarettes than they do alcohol.
(source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html)
i'd think it's safe to say that more people drink alcohol than smoke cigarettes. so, if the goal is to increase revenue, why not increase the alcohol tax?
Baron 7-21-2008 @ 1:31PM
I live in MS and I hear about this day in and day out. I can't say I really know what Haley's real reasoning is, but I know him and think he seems like a pretty good person. I know that he is currently waiting on a tax study to make a decision b/c a lot of the small towns are not happy about the tax swap (they want to swap a higher cig tax with a lower/no grocery tax) since they would lose a lot of funding.
My problem, and I think a lot of the problem for people with much common sense, is that you want to set a budget for a system based on a tax that will lose money each year. What I mean to say is... We don't want people smoking, we decrease the number of places each year people smoke, we offer them money to stop smoking, whole cities are going smoke free, we are pumping money into the system etc. etc. So, with smoking trending downward (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78509.php) and continuing to trend downward, not to mention a higher tax will = a lower smoking rate (which is exactly what was argued a while back when a non smoking group was trying to have taxes raised simply to curb some of the demand) will end up with a lower tax base. I wouldn't be surprised to see it completely stopped one day. Maybe not banned per say, but so low that it might as well be a non issue. So, why, then would you want to base the operating budget of a govt (or other) division based on a tax base that is dieing (literally and figuratively?)
Jan Bay 7-21-2008 @ 9:13PM
Excellent points, Baron and Mihir! I like the idea of taxing liquor just as well as taxing cigarettes! If we could tax them both out of existence it would be fine with me because most people don't drink responsibly.
ninainindia 7-20-2008 @ 9:12PM
Aren't the menthol cigarettes very uncool amongst teenagers? They were when I was young.
Reply
rebecca Biernesser 7-21-2008 @ 3:50AM
Most people I know that was the age and smoking Menthol, were usually smoking something else too. just saying...
Reply
Jeff 7-21-2008 @ 1:02PM
"Menthol cigarettes are the minty ones, you know, the ones most like candy."
Anyone who thinks any cigarette tastes even remotely like candy is an idiot.
Reply