Last week the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hinted a restriction on menthol in cigarettes might again be coming - and the stock markets reacted as expected, reading a government restriction as the first step toward a ban, which led to a casual government statement costing investors billions. Domestic cigarette company Altria stock dropped 3.6 percent, and it probably still isn't a good buy, since it was at a price/stock ratio of 4.7, about 30 percent above other cigarette companies. 

British American Tobacco (which makes Newport and Lucky Strike) fared even worse, because about 25 percent of their total earnings are from the U.S. menthol market, which cost their investors $11 billion. Imperial, which is known for Winston, lost 5 percent on its stock because it gets 15 percent of revenue from Menthol products.

What was the FDA's goal here? To end smoking? That's certainly a laudable goal, one I have always supported, but in 2009, when the government banned other flavors (clove, strawberry), menthol got a free pass, though the reason was more political than scientific - as was the reason for wanting to ban them. In the end, they compromised. Other flavors were trivial, which means the multiyear rulemaking process was relatively easy and without the popularity of menthol, it wasn't tied up in court.

Social justice is not a scientific reason to ban a component in cigarettes but that was a key reason for a ban, as were claims that menthol was a "starter" cigarette for youth. History has borne out that the second argument is false - smoking has continued to decline among youth thanks to smoking cessation techniques and no young people actually use "bubble gum" flavor vaping liquid, swee 

It is not science to say menthol is why people smoke

And it is difficult for the government to argue that nicotine is the addictive component and then say that menthol is addictive, so they instead rely on statistical correlation. 

Is it racial?