Talk:Menthol cigarette

Untitled

this page is pretty damn racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.158.107 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Old conversation

• I heard that when smokers smoke mentholated cigarettes, their lungs bleed for seven seconds, and I wanted to know if that were true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.83.171 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"It would be interesting to know when rod was first put on the market, whose idea it was, etc."

• I can't help but feel this survey was biased or not well conducted. I see white people smoking menthol much more often than 13/20%, nationwide. Likewise, it sounds quite unlikely 56% of black smokers will not smoke a non menthol cigarette if its the only one available, especially compared to 28% white people. If true, perhaps this survey was conducted in a place where racial cliques smoke for fashion, ect? It's defiantly a classic example of wikipedia preferring a possibly unreliable source thats cited than completely true uncited fact. THat's just my personal thoughts, however. MunkyJuce69 (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

biased against menthol? 203.109.167.159 11:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole article was taken from http://www.naaapi.org/documents/menthol_factsht.asp

Proposed edits to Regulation section, inclusion of the proposed ban.

Hello editors, I've some suggested edits for this page, but I thought I would see if anybody else wanted to weigh in or offer advice before I change the page.

First, I think the "Economics and Regulation in the US" section heading is clunky. The first two paragraphs seem to be about menthol cigarettes' use and popularity, so why not give that its own section (titled "Use and Popularity?"). "Regulation" should be its own section.

Also, there has been a lot of news in the last couple of years about the FDA proposed ban on menthol, as well the racial implications of such a proposed ban. I'm not sure if that's fitting for wikipedia or not, but perhaps "proposed ban" should be a subsection under "regulation."

Please let me know what you think either here or on my talk page. Thanks! Balloccoli (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edits to Regulation section, inclusion of the proposed ban.

Hello editors, I've some suggested edits for this page, but I thought I would see if anybody else wanted to weigh in or offer advice before I change the page.

First, I think the "Economics and Regulation in the US" section heading is clunky. The first two paragraphs seem to be about menthol cigarettes' use and popularity, so why not give that its own section (titled "Use and Popularity?"). "Regulation" should be its own section.

Also, there has been a lot of news in the last couple of years about the FDA proposed ban on menthol, as well the racial implications of such a proposed ban. I'm not sure if that's fitting for wikipedia or not, but perhaps "proposed ban" should be a subsection under "regulation."

I've put my draft of these sections in my sandbox. Please let me know what you think either here or on my talk page. Thanks! Balloccoli (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I only had time for a quick review and most of your changes seem good so far. Don't use the first heading of "Menthol Cigarette" and all of your subheadings should only have 2 equation marks. I agree with your splits but make sure that the wikilinks you inputted incorrectly are changed. There might be some issues since you have a conflict of interest and have removed (#1 brand in the US form Newport), but I believe it is POV so I am going to remove that now anyways. Ryan Vesey contribs 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a list of problems that I did find later though.

1. You removed information about Kool cigarettes.
2. Your reference to "the industry" when you state that they created a report stating that menthol cigarettes were no more dangerous to regular cigarettes should be changed to "the tobacco industry"
3. Why was information about the protest removed? Ryan Vesey contribs 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, thanks for taking a look! Newports being the #1 brand of menthol in the U.S. is fairly well-established and widely-recognized, so that blurb could stay. I've added it back in my sandbox draft, but I'm agnostic either way and will defer to you.

To answer your other questions -

1. The mention of Kool cigarettes was denoted with "citation needed" - I wasn't sure if I should leave that in if I'm suggesting an overhaul of edits. I've added Kool back in in my sandbox draft, and added a citation. However, the only citation I could find was a "company history" webpage from RJ Reynolds - is that acceptable? I'm trying to bring the whole article closer to wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. I checked the wikipage for Kool but the only reference pointed to what I believe is a spam blog.
2. Tobacco industry, noted and changed.
3. My omission of the protest was an accident. In fact, I've re-organized the final section in my sandbox, re-titling it "opposition to proposed ban" and added some info about the protest and its reference back, although it's a little more condensed than what's currently in the article.

I really appreciate your time. Please let me know if you have further recommendations.Balloccoli (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed a DAB link on the page. In addition, December of 2010 should be changed to December 2010 I believe. I believe that the information on KOOL cigarettes is good enough that it should be left in unless someone opposes. I would recommend that you copy it over to the main article space. Then I will compare the two articles and see if anything needs changing. Once it is copied over, you can work on combining some paragraphs. For example, the two sentences about the events in March 2011 could read that "On March 18, 2011 the panel concluded that removing menthol cigarettes from the market would benefit public health in the United States, but stopped short of recommending that the Food and Drug Administration take any specific actions, like restricting or banning the additive. In response, the tobacco industry released a report to the FDA claiming menthol cigarettes are no riskier than regular cigarettes and should not be regulated differently." (I didn't include references but they should be kept) We try to stay away from one sentence paragraphs. Ryan Vesey contribs 04:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Ryan. I've copied my changes over to the main article, leaving some of the original content in the "origins" section. Also, I see what you mean by combining paragraphs. I included your suggested edit of the TPSAC and tobacco industry reports, and I also combined some of the paragraphs in the "opposition" section. Please take a look and tell me what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloccoli (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have time for another quick statement, and will hopefully do another thorough review later today. I removed the information about Newports being the most popular as it was not appropriate for the section of origins. It may be appropriate in the section "Use and popularity". It is always important to make sure that an article does not maintain a bias, and that is my worry but I would not oppose if you put the information in that section. I also wikilinked to the various cigarette brands. I wish I knew of a way to include an image on the page which would not display only one brand. Do the cigarettes themselves look any different from normal cigarettes? I would assume not but I wish there was something to add to the page. I would also like to see a little more information on the history of regulations/bans/consumption. Was there no discussion of regulation until 2000? Ryan Vesey contribs 16:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Removing the Newports thing is fine with me. Unfortunately, there's nothing that visually differentiates menthol cigarettes from regular ones, so we're out of luck on the photo, I believe. Menthol regulation really wasn't an issue until around 2008 when the FSPATC Act was being debated.

I agree, the history section should be built out, though it's difficult to find good sources. The internet is full of search-optimized spam for discounted or duty-free cigarettes. It makes finding good information almost impossible, but I will be sure to keep my eyes open.Balloccoli (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menthol cigarette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427052749/http://articles.boston.com/2011-03-18/business/29350721_1_menthol-tobacco-industry-tobacco-companies to http://articles.boston.com/2011-03-18/business/29350721_1_menthol-tobacco-industry-tobacco-companies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)