#NNPA BlackPress

OP-ED: FDA — Smoking While Black and Brown in America

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Our experiences inform us that the implementation of a menthol ban will inevitably and undoubtedly create an increased number of stops, frisks, and interactions between law enforcement and members from Black and Brown communities. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Black and Brown residents in the U.S. continue to have a long and troubled legacy of disproportionately larger numbers of police stops and interactions with the police. The proposed menthol ban will do nothing to quell this troubling reality.
The post OP-ED: FDA — Smoking While Black and Brown in America first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

3 years ago

April 5, 2022

Oakland Post

By Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, President and CEO, National Newspaper Publishers Association

Whenever the history of racial discrimination in the United States appears to repeat itself, it produces predictable rhymes and sometimes tragic social consequences. Mark Twain, Ida B. Wells, James Baldwin, and Toni Morrison all had one thing in common as visionary authors. They used their pens to offer literary critiques about America’s historical inflection points concerning racism and systemic inequalities.

The federal government’s recent announcement that it is close to proscribing a ban on menthol cigarettes is another public policy gone astray that will produce unintended racial-discriminatory consequences. As a result of a decades-long marketing campaign aimed at African Americans, nearly 85% of all non-Hispanic Black smokers choose menthol cigarettes, the highest percentage of menthol cigarette use compared to other racial and ethnic groups. The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be questioned about their disparate targeting of African American and Latino-American smokers who disproportionately prefer to smoke menthol cigarettes. This is an urgent matter now that the FDA has just asked the government’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review the proposed discriminatory ban.

Driving while Black and Brown, jogging while Black and Brown, and breathing while Black and Brown have had, at times, fatal consequences intergenerationally for women, men, and youth from our communities. Now, our families and communities will have to contend additionally with smoking while Black and Brown in America.

For the record, I do not smoke tobacco or marijuana. I am raising questions, however, to the FDA and to the U.S. Congress because I care passionately about protecting the civil rights and cultural rights of communities of color. We should learn from the past about how to avoid racial injustice rather than to entertain the repetition of pseudo-justifications of wrongdoing and counterproductive public policies that disparage communities of color.

Recalling back in the 1980s and 1990s there was the prevalence of the availability and use of crack cocaine that swept severe drug-related suffering in urban areas across the nation. Because of decades of White flight and self-segregation, those same inner-city areas were disproportionately populated by Black and Brown families. The result was another regrettable chapter in American history when crack cocaine ravaged our communities.

The subsequent response from the federal government was neither compassion nor empathy. Rather, the U.S. Congress passed the now-infamous 1994 Crime Bill, which treated the possession of crack cocaine disproportionately harsher in the criminal justice system than powder cocaine, which was more expensive and more commonly used by White drug users. Too many communities of color were once again devastated by the unjust massive long-term imprisonment of crack cocaine users for decades that literally destroyed families and left hundreds of thousands of children without parents while escalating mass incarceration of Black and Brown people to an unprecedented national level.

It is, therefore, against this historical backdrop that we find anew the recent contradictory announcement by the Biden Administration’s FDA. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 85% of Black and Brown smokers prefer menthol cigarettes. While there may be compelling public health concerns that can be cited to support proposing a ban on smoking cigarettes, the question arises why the FDA only wants to target and ban “menthol” cigarettes that are disproportionately used and preferred by Black and Brown smokers. Law enforcement agencies, similar to what happened by law enforcement in response to the crack cocaine epidemic, will ultimately have to enforce the proposed ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes.

In addition, serious concerns today abound among national and local law enforcement leaders that a prohibition of these particular tobacco products will only end up dramatically increasing an illicit, underground market for these menthol products. I am certain that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will rightly oppose any public policy by the FDA that will lead to further substantial border insecurity from the future billion-dollar illicit smuggling of proposed menthol-banned tobacco products into the United States. Another serious unintended consequence will be the illegal trafficking of FDA-banned cigarettes by international terrorists who will profit millions of dollars from that illicit trade.

I write, therefore, on behalf of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) and the Black Press of America that have been “pleading our own cause” since March 16, 1827 with the first publication of Freedom’s Journal 195 years ago. Our concerns are not hypothetical and do not exist in a vacuum.

Our experiences inform us that the implementation of a menthol ban will inevitably and undoubtedly create an increased number of stops, frisks, and interactions between law enforcement and members from Black and Brown communities. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Black and Brown residents in the U.S. continue to have a long and troubled legacy of disproportionately larger numbers of police stops and interactions with the police. The proposed menthol ban will do nothing to quell this troubling reality.

Moreover, there is data to suggest that a prohibition on the sale of menthol cigarettes would not meet the proposed ban’s intended goal. According to a report by the United States Surgeon General, published in 2020, “the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer that restricting the sale of certain types of tobacco products, such as menthol or other flavored products, increases smoking cessation, especially among certain populations.” Indeed, a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research echoes this concern and suggests that a prohibition on menthol cigarettes is “unlikely to be a panacea,” because while the product may be prohibited in Canada, it is available on Native Canadian reserves, and still available for purchase throughout Mexico.

On his first day in The White House, President Biden signed the Executive Order (13985) on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. That was a much-needed federal corrective action taken by President Biden. Notwithstanding those facts, it has become a noticeable contradiction for the FDA to now embark on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to a menthol ban tentatively scheduled for April 2022.

What are some of the possible alternative options for the FDA and for the U.S. Congress with respect to menthol cigarettes? One option is for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of the FDA to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and additional relevant entities (including representatives of community organizations that have been historically underrepresented in the Federal Government and underserved by, subject to discrimination in, Federal policies and programs) to conduct a national study on the impact of a menthol ban would have on:

the frequency of adverse law enforcement interactions with members of communities of color, underserved and other discriminated communities
the illicit sale of counterfeit cigarettes in communities of color, underserved and other discriminated communities, and
the likelihood that counterfeit cigarettes illicitly sold in communities of color, underserved and other discriminated communities would contain a mixture of lethal substances in excess of the toxins found in ordinary commercially approved cigarettes

There are other options in addition to the stated above proposal that I am confident can and should be explored by both the U.S. Congress and the FDA. What should be prohibited at this point should be all forms of racial profiling and targeting. Smoking while Black and Brown should not be the predicate for more negative disastrous interactions between law enforcement and our communities who have already suffered too much. I recently had the honor to attend a national meeting of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Black police chiefs and other Black law enforcement executives from across the nation voiced their concerns about the negative, disparate and dangerous unintended consequences of the proposed FDA ban on menthol cigarettes.

Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr. is currently the President and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) and Executive Producer/Host of The Chavis Chronicles television show that is broadcast weekly on PBS TV stations throughout the United States.

The post OP-ED: FDA — Smoking While Black and Brown in America first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Excitement Builds for Shocking Tiger Woods Return at The Masters

Don't Miss

Sen. Padilla Is Optimistic About Judge Jackson’s “Significant Moment” in American History

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Rep. Al Green Files Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Rep. Green told Newsweek that he is moving on impeachment now before “tanks are rolling down the street.”

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

By Lauren Burke

Congressman Al Green (D-TX) has filed articles of impeachment against President Trump. Rep. Green, 77, has served in Congress since 2005. President Trump is the only President who has been impeached twice by the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Green told Newsweek that he is moving on impeachment now before “tanks are rolling down the street.” The impeachment resolution filed by Rep. Green on May 19, states that President Trump is, “unfit to represent the American values of decency and morality, respectability and civility, honesty, and propriety, reputability, and integrity, is unfit to defend the ideals that have made America great, is unfit to defend liberty and justice for all as extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance, is unfit to defend the American ideal of all persons being created equal as exalted in the Declaration of Independence, is unfit to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity as lauded in the preamble to the United States Constitution, is unfit to protect government of the people…” Whether Rep. Green can force a vote in the U.S. House on impeachment remains an unknown issue. President Trump was impeached on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was then impeached a second time on January 13, 2021, for “Incitement of insurrection” in the wake of the violent January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters.

The White House stated Black Press USA on Rep. Green’s effort to impeach the President. “This week, Democrats ousted their DNC ‘leader,’ opposed the largest tax cut in history, and were exposed for actively covering up Joe Biden’s four-year cognitive decline. Now, Democrats have turned their sights to threatening impeachment. We are witnessing the collapse of the Democrat Party before our eyes. Not a single one of these efforts will help the American people. The contrast could not be more clear: President Trump is fighting for historic tax relief for the American people, Democrats are fighting themselves,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly in a written statement. Several decisions and legal interpretations by the Trump Administration are currently being challenged in federal court. On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court debated the issue of birthright citizenship after a legal challenge on the issue by the Trump Administration.

During that legal challenge, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Trump’s solicitor general Dean John Sauer by saying, “Your argument seems to turn our justice system into a catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.” Rep. Green’s impeachment resolution also focused on the issue of ignoring judicial orders by the executive branch. A notable example was the deportation case of Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Garcia was deported to a prison in El Salvador by federal officials on March 15, 2025.“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’” “You have no mandate,” Congressman Green stood up and yelled at President Trump during his State of the Union Speech on March 4. After the incident, Republicans who control the U.S. House considered sanctioning Rep. Green, but they did not complete an action against him.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Affordable Childcare Remains a Barrier: Solutions in New Report

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — We also still haven’t put a dent in affordability for working families. That’s why we urgently need increased funding and new solutions.”

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

While America’s childcare supply grew nationally, the price of that care continues to rise—placing affordable, high-quality care out of reach for many families. A new report released by Child Care Aware® of America (CCAoA), Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply, shows that despite promising signs of increased supply, affordability remains a major barrier — and underscores the need for increased sustained federal and state investment.

From 2023 to 2024, the number of childcare centers increased by 1.6% (to 92,613) and the supply of licensed family childcare (FCC) homes increased by 4.8% (to 98,807). The national growth in FCC homes’ supply is driven largely by four states (CA, KS, MA, VA) and is especially notable as it reverses a year-long downward trend.

At the same time, the national average price for childcare rose by 29% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing inflation and exceeding other major family household expenses like rent or mortgage payments in many states. Childcare is now so expensive that it consumes 10% of a married couple with children’s median household income and a staggering 35% for a single parent. In most states, families pay more for childcare than rent, mortgage payments, or in-state university tuition.

“Childcare supply is increasing, and that is a win—but it’s not enough,” said Susan Gale Perry, Chief Executive Officer of CCAoA. “Recent federal and state pandemic-era investments have stabilized and grown supply in some places, but a significant supply gap still exists — especially in rural communities and for infants and toddlers. We also still haven’t put a dent in affordability for working families. That’s why we urgently need increased funding and new solutions.”

CCAoA’s Childcare in America: 2024 Price & Supply report also found that:

The average price of childcare increased by 29% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing the national inflation rate of 22%.
In 45 states plus Washington, DC, the average annual price of center-based childcare for two children exceeded mortgage payments, in some states by up to 78%.
In 49 states plus Washington, DC, the price of center-based childcare for two children exceeded median rent payments ranging from 19% to over 100%.
In 41 states plus Washington, DC, infant care in a center cost more than in-state university tuition.

CCAoA urges policymakers to increase childcare funding at both state and federal levels to maintain the momentum of growing supply, address rising prices, and expand access to childcare for families. Federal funding increases have fallen short of the need and our research shows that total state investments in child care or preschool vary widely from state to state, putting children, families, and communities across America on an uneven playing field. Further, targeted investments in childcare supply building and stabilization and childcare workforce recruitment and retention strategies are essential to help sustain an adequate supply of high-quality childcare options nationwide.

Child Care Aware® of America (CCAoA) is the only national organization that supports every part of the childcare system. Together with an on-the-ground network of people doing the work in states and communities, it helps America become child care strong by providing research that drives effective practice and policy, building strong child care programs and professionals, helping families find and afford quality child care, delivering thought leadership to the military and direct service to its families, and providing a real-world understanding of what works and what doesn’t to spur policymakers into action and help them build solutions.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Sex, Coercion, and Stardom: Diddy Case Mirrors Music’s Ugly History

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — It started with a Reddit post that didn’t just speculate on Diddy’s fate but questioned the very foundations of the culture that made him

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

As Sean “Diddy” Combs faces a federal sex trafficking case and the slow unraveling of his once-untouchable legacy, a larger question looms: Is this the moment the music industry finally confronts its darkest secrets?

It started with a Reddit post that didn’t just speculate on Diddy’s fate but questioned the very foundations of the culture that made him: “How much damage could Diddy do to the state of hip hop?” the user asked. “Supposedly, he has incriminating evidence against those who attended his parties. The same parties that had a lot of bad things happen, to say the least.” The implication was chilling—if Diddy were to cooperate with federal authorities, the fallout might not stop at his feet. Names floated in the post—Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Usher, Justin Bieber—aren’t confirmed in any court filings, but their inclusion highlights the breadth of Diddy’s influence and the potential reach of any revelations. If even a fraction of the speculation proves true, the reverberations wouldn’t stop at hip-hop—they’d hit every corner of the music industry. For his part, Combs denies all allegations. His legal team has described the now-infamous “freak-offs” as consensual encounters, part of his non-monogamous lifestyle. But prosecutors allege something much more sinister: a criminal enterprise powered by the machinery of his music and business empire—one that trafficked women, coerced labor, obstructed justice, and used influence and intimidation to maintain control. Still, for all the headlines Combs generates, his alleged crimes do not exist in isolation. The music industry has long tolerated, enabled, and even glamorized behavior that would trigger career-ending consequences in other arenas. Diddy’s story might be shocking—but it’s not new.

Rock music has its own rogue’s gallery. Jerry Lee Lewis nearly destroyed his career in 1958 after marrying his 13-year-old cousin. Elvis Presley met 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu when he was 24 and later moved her into his home in Memphis. In more recent years, Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler faced (and ultimately evaded) a lawsuit from a woman who says he sexually assaulted her in the 1970s when she was 17. A judge dismissed the case due to the statute of limitations. Phil Spector, the genius producer behind the “Wall of Sound,” died in prison after being convicted of murdering actress Lana Clarkson. Gary Glitter was convicted of possessing child pornography and later child sex abuse. Kid Rock and Creed frontman Scott Stapp were filmed with strippers in a sex tape that leaked online in 2006. A new biography of the Rolling Stones claims Mick Jagger had sexual relationships with at least two of his male bandmates, raising further questions about the power dynamics inside even the most celebrated groups.

Journalist Ann Powers, writing for NPR, once noted that the “history of rock turns on moments in which women and young boys were exploited in myriad financial, emotional and sexual ways.” Powers added: “From the teen-scream 1950s onward, one of the music’s fundamental functions has been to frame and express sexual feelings for and from the very young… relating to older men whose glamour and influence encourages trust, not caution.” This brings the spotlight back to Diddy—not just as an accused individual but as a symbol. He was once the archetype of success: Harlem-born mogul, founder of Bad Boy Records, and kingmaker behind artists like Notorious B.I.G., Faith Evans, Ma$e, 112, and French Montana. He transformed hip-hop into a global business and amassed influence far beyond the recording booth. He sold more than 500 million records, earned multiple Grammy Awards, and was honored by MTV, Howard University, and the City of New York—until those honors were swiftly revoked after a video surfaced showing him physically assaulting singer Cassie Ventura. Ventura, his longtime partner and protégé, has accused Combs of brutal physical abuse and psychological control. Her lawsuit and the video evidence ignited a wave of allegations from other women and men, describing similar patterns of coercion, manipulation, and fear. “This is not just about bad behavior. This is about systemic exploitation and abuse made possible by fame, money, and silence,” said one advocate for survivors in the entertainment industry.

While hip-hop has long been a target of criticism for misogyny and violence, what’s now being laid bare is a broader, genre-defying truth: from rock and pop to hip-hop and beyond, the music industry has operated for decades without accountability for its biggest stars. “Sex isn’t the problem,” one Reddit user responded. “Coercion via job opportunities is.” Another added, “Zero [impact], just like R. Kelly and MJ did zero to R&B,” referencing the R&B superstar’s conviction and Michael Jackson’s controversial legacy. Others argued hip hop would endure, regardless of Combs’ fate. Maybe it will. But the Diddy scandal pulls back the curtain—not just on the parties, the rumors, or the headlines—but on an industry-wide culture that has, for too long, allowed power to shield predation. As one survivor put it outside a recent court appearance: “This isn’t just a hip hop problem. It’s not even just a music problem. It’s a power problem.” And now, the music industry has to decide: Will it finally tune in, or will it keep playing the same old song?