Categories
national politics & policies

Won But Not Over

The Office on Smoking at Health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not telling the truth about the war on tobacco use.

In an article at Reason, Jacob Sullum convincingly argues that the CDC persists on portraying tobacco use amongst teens as in crisis.

According to the CDC, past progress has been “erased.”

Looked at one way, the stats are alarming: “The share of high school students who reported using e‑cigarettes in the previous month jumped from 11.7 percent in 2017 to 20.8 percent in 2018,” Sullum summarizes. 

Sounds bad, eh?

But Sullum noticed something: 

  1. the increase tobacco use is wholly the result of increased e‑cigarette usage, which is less harmful than smoking;
  2. very few of the increased number of vapers actually vape regularly, with less than 6 percent vaping daily; and
  3. smoking has dropped dramatically, with “past-​month cigarette smoking among high school students [falling] from 28.5 percent to 5.8 percent.”

So, why isn’t the CDC proclaiming victory?

Well, there is something called “Spencer’s Law.” Taken from Herbert Spencer’s essay “From Freedom to Bondage,” it goes like this: 

“The degree of public concern and anxiety about a social problem or phenomenon varies inversely as to its real or actual incidence.” 

“In plain English,” philosopher Stephen Davies explains, “this means that when a social problem is genuinely widespread and severe it will attract little notice or discussion. It will only become the object of attention, concern, and controversy precisely when it is in decline and its severity is diminishing.”

Why?

In the CDC’s case, could it have something to do with unlikely funding for a war already won?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

smoking, vaping, ban, prohibition, teenager,

From a photo by Airman 1st Class Brittany Perry

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
media and media people meme Popular responsibility too much government

Overkill … for Your Health

News stories about death- and illness-​by-​vaping keep hitting us. But in most of these stories it is what is left out that is most alarming.

From Washington State’s King County we learn of another case of severe lung disease “associated with vaping.” But the reportage doesn’t mention how the maladies relate to vaping. “KING-​TV reports there have been 15 cases of severe lung disease associated with vaping in Washington state since April 2019.…” Interesting as far as that goes, but.…

In addition to no discussion of causality, the most obvious thing not mentioned in this and similar reports? The numbers diagnosed with severe lung disease caused by smoking — which is the relevant vaping alternative.

The U.S. Government’s agency devoted to diagnosing potentially widespread pathogens and practices is, thankfully, a bit more useful. In a recently published study, scientists have narrowed down the real culprit: “Vitamin E acetate was detected in all 29 patient” samples taken from those under study. 

Most had been vaping THC.

There are organizations worse than sloppy news outlets, however. In Massachusetts, the House of Representatives has passedbill not merely to ban flavored e‑cigarettes, but also to levy 75 percent tax on all e‑liquids and vaping devices. 

Typical government overkill.

But not overkill enough, for the bill doesn’t stop there. Whopping fines against those caught with unlicensed vaping products are also in the bill, as is — aaargh! — civil asset forfeiture.

The “representatives” of Massachusetts’ citizens want to take away their automobiles, boats and airplanes if they cannot prove, on the spot, their vaping products’ legality.

Politicians are far more dangerous than vaping.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

vape, vaping, law, asset forfeiture, politicians,

Photo by Vaping360

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies

Are You a Conspiracy Theorist?

Politicians are all over the vaping issue, like packrats on pet food.

The House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, C‑SPAN explains, held a hearing on the relationship between e‑cigarettes and an outbreak in lung disease. Government experts spoke. There was only one empaneled pro-​vaping witness, Vicki Porter, who said that vaping was “a health miracle to me,” since it got her off of smoking tobacco.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-​Shultz (D – Fla.) insisted that the record show that she was not to be trusted, since she merely expressed her own opinion as to the superiority of vaping over smoking, noting that Ms. Porter “is not a public health expert.”

But it was Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D – Mich.) who really came out swinging for the interventionist government. Her main concern, writes Robby Soave at Reason, appeared to be Porter’s direct challenging of “the tortured logic of the Oversight and Reform Subcommittee hearing.”

Rep. Tlaib said she “wanted to know more about you,” to Ms. Porter. “You call yourself a ‘converted conservative,’” Tlaib stuttered, “and a reformed Marxist.

“Are you a conspiracy theorist?”

Wh-​what?

Ms. Porter answered reasonably. Then Tlaib questioned her regarding why she had winked at one of her colleagues. Porter said they knew each other.

In the 1960s, the CIA pushed the phrase “conspiracy theorist” as a way to publicly marginalize anyone who questioned official pronouncements on the JFK assassinations and even trickier subjects, like UFOs. Rep. Tlaib is either one of those who bought into the CIA line, or is part of some less-​than-​transparent agenda.

So, are you a conspiracy theorist?

My answer might have been, not until right about now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Representative Rashida Tlaib, screams, Trump, rally

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies Popular too much government

E‑Panic

One of the better arguments for government relies upon sobriety: we want rational, measured responses to threats, not panicky, hot-​headed reactions. We have a rule of law to prevent revenge and vendetta, replacing them with justice and civil order.

But when we expand the concept of “threat” far beyond interpersonal violence and to dangers from our own foolish or merely misguided behavior, “sobriety” too often doesn’t even seem an option.

Take drugs. 

Specifically, take “vaping.” 

That is the innovative technology of “e‑cigarettes” that can be used to replace the smoking of tobacco and other drugs with inhaling drug-​laced water vapor.

Vaping is far less dangerous than tobacco, at least for emphysema and lung cancer, but it is not harmless. Several hundred people across several of these United States have become very ill and a few have died of a mysterious lung disease.

So of course the Surgeon General calls it an epidemic, and the White House and Congress take up the cause to regulate and even prohibit vaping. And India just “became the latest country to ban electronic cigarettes,” according to Bloomberg

Whoa, the subject has barely been studied, and what we know so far is that it was not major-​brand nicotine e‑liquid, but, instead, boutique product that has caused most of the casualties. 

The leap to legislation has been too quick for consumers to alter their own behavior with new information.

Besides, prohibition and regulation haven’t worked to prevent the current opiate overdose crisis.

The rush to “do something very, very strong,” as President Trump puts it, is the very opposite of why we say we want government.

Its lack of sobriety is … sobering.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

vape, vaping, law, ban, prohibition,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

A Vapor’s Chance in Hell

There is a big difference between government designed to protect our rights and a government tasked with protecting us from ourselves.

You couldn’t find a better example of this than the current Federal Drug Administration and its regulation of vaping.

Vaping is the imbibing of water vapor laced with nicotine and other ingredients. It is designed to replace the smoking of tobacco cigarettes. It is much, much less harmful than smoking. The genius of this innovation is that while it looks a lot like smoking, it involves no smoke. But it does involve inhaling, and blowing out wisps of … well, vapor.

It’s safer than smoking because smoking tobacco involves burning organic (and inorganic) matter, which puts tars and other chemical substances into one’s lungs.

But the competing companies that make the product are not allowed to tell us about its advantages.

New regulations of the e‑cigarette industry from the FDA prohibit a lot of truth-​telling in advertising. “Even if a few companies survive the shakeout caused by the FDA’s onerous regulations,” Jacob Sullum writes in Reason, “they will not be allowed to tell consumers the truth about their products.” It appears that “any intimation that noncombustible, tobacco-​free e‑cigarettes are safer than the conventional, tobacco-​burning kind” places them under a category that simply must “be marketed only with prior approval.”

The legal judgments Sullum quotes will make you sicker … than your first cigarette puff.

Paternalistic government designed to save us from our vices ends up blocking us from actually lessening the bad effect of those vices.

Some help.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

vape, vaping, smoking, law, regulation, unintended consequence, illustration, photo

 


Photo credit: micadew on Flickr