Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral (from Wikipedia).
"Flavor bans" target minorities (everyone that is a "non-white male") by reducing the opportunity for them to have "less risk" choices beyond "combustion tobacco." This includes vaping and/or flavor bans in housing as well as other areas (see this for example).
According to the CDC (this website):
and
3. Jamal A, Phillips E, Gentzke AS, et al. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults—United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2018;67:53-59. DOI: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6702a1.htm [accessed 2018 Jan 30].
This would seem to indicate that about 81% of smokers are non-white and about 65% don't have a high school education.
There is also more than adequate information indicating that gender and race account for tobacco flavor choices, e.g., this study.
Interestingly there is little in the way of similar e-cig usage by race. This study, though, provides a tiny bit of insight, e.g., "African Americans/Blacks were significantly less likely to report ever-use compared to Whites and Hispanics (50% vs. 71% and 71%, respectively; p < 0.001). "
Even the FDA CTP admits the potential risk reduction opportunities, e.g., "It is not the nicotine that kills half of all long-term cigarette smokers," said Zeller. "The nicotine creates and sustains the addictions, but it's not the nicotine that kills people." and “We are also optimistic that this could have positive implications for eventual modified risk claims by non-combustible nicotine delivery products such as e-cigs and smokeless products.”
But it would seem that all of the e-cigarette activity relates to what amounts to "white people." For example see this.
Looking at pages like this we notice that "youth" is the only criteria for the statistics. However, given the vast disparity between white and non-white tobacco use documented by the CDC one can only conclude most youthful smokers are non-white and that there is a similar disparity for e-cigarettes.
As I wrote in Genocide by Regulation combustion tobacco targets poor minorities because they are the heaviest users. Changing the risk for these users is a win: "The regs say on page #30: “FDA believes that the inhalation of nicotine (i.e., nicotine without the products of combustion) is of less risk to the user than the inhalation of nicotine delivered by smoke from combusted tobacco products.” (Of course there's some expected maybe's and "limited data" caveat's...) Then: "... nicotine exposure by inhalation without combustion are likely NOT responsible for the high prevalence of tobacco-related death and disease in this country" (my emphasis)."
Flavor bans target minorities (everyone that is a non-white male) by reducing the opportunity for them to have choices beyond "combustion tobacco."
I believe that all ethnic groups deserve a fair and equal chance under the law to make their own health decisions regardless of where they work or live.
"Flavor bans" target minorities (everyone that is a "non-white male") by reducing the opportunity for them to have "less risk" choices beyond "combustion tobacco." This includes vaping and/or flavor bans in housing as well as other areas (see this for example).
According to the CDC (this website):
and
3. Jamal A, Phillips E, Gentzke AS, et al. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults—United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2018;67:53-59. DOI: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6702a1.htm [accessed 2018 Jan 30].
This would seem to indicate that about 81% of smokers are non-white and about 65% don't have a high school education.
There is also more than adequate information indicating that gender and race account for tobacco flavor choices, e.g., this study.
Interestingly there is little in the way of similar e-cig usage by race. This study, though, provides a tiny bit of insight, e.g., "African Americans/Blacks were significantly less likely to report ever-use compared to Whites and Hispanics (50% vs. 71% and 71%, respectively; p < 0.001). "
Even the FDA CTP admits the potential risk reduction opportunities, e.g., "It is not the nicotine that kills half of all long-term cigarette smokers," said Zeller. "The nicotine creates and sustains the addictions, but it's not the nicotine that kills people." and “We are also optimistic that this could have positive implications for eventual modified risk claims by non-combustible nicotine delivery products such as e-cigs and smokeless products.”
But it would seem that all of the e-cigarette activity relates to what amounts to "white people." For example see this.
Looking at pages like this we notice that "youth" is the only criteria for the statistics. However, given the vast disparity between white and non-white tobacco use documented by the CDC one can only conclude most youthful smokers are non-white and that there is a similar disparity for e-cigarettes.
As I wrote in Genocide by Regulation combustion tobacco targets poor minorities because they are the heaviest users. Changing the risk for these users is a win: "The regs say on page #30: “FDA believes that the inhalation of nicotine (i.e., nicotine without the products of combustion) is of less risk to the user than the inhalation of nicotine delivered by smoke from combusted tobacco products.” (Of course there's some expected maybe's and "limited data" caveat's...) Then: "... nicotine exposure by inhalation without combustion are likely NOT responsible for the high prevalence of tobacco-related death and disease in this country" (my emphasis)."
Flavor bans target minorities (everyone that is a non-white male) by reducing the opportunity for them to have choices beyond "combustion tobacco."
I believe that all ethnic groups deserve a fair and equal chance under the law to make their own health decisions regardless of where they work or live.
No comments:
Post a Comment