April 26, 2014

NYT editors embrace what they call "Wise Controls on E-Cigarettes."

Because when it comes to puffing on e-cigarettes: "Nobody knows what the net impact of all this would be on the nation’s health." And: "Dozens of studies are underway to find out."

If you're less of an enthusiast for nannyism, you might think that the studies should come first and that ignorance — nobody knows! — is an insufficient foundation for government action.

But think of the children:
Some nonsmokers might become addicted to nicotine after smoking e-cigarettes and move on to regular cigarettes. And young people who smoke only e-cigarettes can still suffer damage to the developing brain. 
It's not just young people, of course. I "smoke" e-cigarettes for fun sometimes, and I'm not and have never been a member of the Communist Party smoking public.


traditionalguy said...

So the modern and very progressive NYT still pushes fictional Public Health aspects of the old Church Lady mantra that says it is socially unacceptable to smoke, drink or chew, while they also push censorship of D. H. Lawrence for vulgar words.

Where have all the grown up Liberals gone, long time passing?

tim in vermont said...

My cleaning lady uses them. They have helped her to quit smoking cigarettes. Now Vermont wants to tax them just like cigarettes.

I doubt they tax methadone, in fact, they give it away for free.

Illuninati said...

Nicotine has important health benefits. It protects the brain from Parkinson's disease and helps prevent or delay Alzheimer disease, and possibly depression.


Paco Wové said...

It's interesting how the NYT goes all Precautionary Principle on certain things, like e-cigarettes, that, *if* they do cause harm, do so on an individual basis – but, are totally "come on! We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it!" when it comes to sweeping remakes of the economy and society.

I'm sure there's a unifying principle there, just haven't found it yet.

betamax3000 said...

Althouse will certainly need the e-cigarettes after reading the following:


What if everything you knew about Althouse was wrong? What if you were to discover that these past months you have been visiting a world of cunning deception? Below are the links to the ground-breaking seven-part series: 'The Althouse Replacement Theory'. Your return visits to 'Althouse' will never be the same...

Part One: Baseball — the Cover Comes Off

Part Two: Dogs and Dog Whistles

Part Three: Gatsby and an Indefinite Procession of Shadows

Part Four: Every Picture tells a Story (Don’t it?)

Part Five: Splooge Stooge: Exit Stage Left

Part Six: Profiles in Deception

Part Seven: The Aftermath and the Asterisk

Paco Wové said...

"Page not found", Betamax.

— 404'ly yours,

Ambrose said...

Just another installment of their: "All the problems of the world can be solved with effective federal regulation." series.

realwest said...

OK, I'm confused. I have 3 friends who've successfully used e-cigarettes to quit smoking. They have advised me that what you get when you "smoke" an e-cig is nicotine. That's it (I gather nicotine in steam vapor format)-no tar or other additives that many tobacco companies ADDED to their cigarettes to perhaps make you more addicted to smoking cigarettes, and which are a significant cause of illnesses and disease caused by smoking real cigarettes.
And I do not understand why e-cigarettes should be regulated or forbidden and real cigarettes simply taxed to the point of being too expensive to smoke any more.

poker1one said...

NYT's editors embrace what they call "Wise Controls on E-Cigarettes."

Embrace Control could be a campaign slogan in the future.

The real reason to control e-cigs is so the state can tax them to make up for any money lost when people stop buying the heavily taxed tobacco cigs. Or something.

Fernandinande said...

My cleaning lady uses them. They have helped her to quit smoking cigarettes.

The CDC knows better:
CDC Director Says Switching From Smoking to Vaping Is a 'Misconception'

Paco Wové said...

Looks like "wise" is waiting for its turn on the euphemism treadmill.

Ann Althouse said...

Why are children allowed to buy coffee and other caffeinated drinks?

Biff said...

I'm glad someone already made the "Precautionary Principle" observation, so I won't have to.

Just remember:


Fernandinande said...

Illuninati said...
Nicotine has important health benefits.
Last link:
"Those with nicotine patches maintained their cognitive abilities longer and sometimes even recovered lost cognitive function. A follow-up study indicated that nicotine may also boost cognitive abilities in elderly people who aren't suffering from Alzheimer's but who are experiencing the typical mental decline associated with old age.
...people with depression who were treated with nicotine patches reported a decrease in their depressive feelings."

I'm shocked - shocked! - that they're not calling it "abnormal brain changes".

CWJ said...

Paco Wove @ 10:10,

I've thought the same thing on more than one occasion. If the noun is unpalatable, in this case "controls," add a modifier to imply acceptability.

Some years ago, it made me wonder what was so unpalatable about the word "latina."

betamax3000 said...

Thanks Paco! Looks suspicious.

Here (fingers-crossed) are the correct links to The Althouse Replacement Theory:

Part One: Baseball — the Cover Comes Off

Part Two: Dogs and Dog Whistles

Part Three: Gatsby and an Indefinite Procession of Shadows

Part Four: Every Picture tells a Story (Don’t it?)

Part Five: Splooge Stooge: Exit Stage Left

Part Six: Profiles in Deception

Part Seven: The Aftermath and the Asterisk

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...
Why are children allowed to buy coffee and other caffeinated drinks?

Why are adults allowed to do things the NYT editors don't like? Embrace Control!

Ambrose said...

"Why are children allowed to buy coffee and other caffeinated drinks?"

I am sure there would be support for some wise federal regulations here.

MarkW said...

Sooner or later, the government *has* to regulate eCigs in order to protect the cigarette tax revenue stream. And, of course, it will use whatever public-health pretext is necessary in order to do it.

kcom said...

Life should be like a school field trip, shouldn't it. You should have to get nanny government's approval to do anything, with a signed permission slip as proof. Want an e-cig? Go down to City Hall and fill out the form. Want to go on a hike out in the woods? Go down and get your permission slip signed. Want to go swimming? Get that permission slip or stay home. Hell, you should probably get one to have permission to cross the street - that's pretty dangerous business.

Of course, if nanny government gets too busy to deal with everyone they can always farm out the work by awarding government contracts to non-profit groups. So, for instance, if you want to drink a Coke you'd go down to your local branch of Nanny Bloomberg's Wise Controls Emporium and get that permission slip signed by a surrogate government bureaucrat before you stopped by a grocery store or a restaurant. It's for the children, after all (which includes the 240 million infanitilized adults they're trying to produce).

zefal said...

Translation: How much in increased sales tax can finagle for public ("servant's")welfare?

Dr Weevil said...

realwest is naive: "taxed to the point of being too expensive to smoke any more"? No, MarkW is correct: cigarette taxes are calibrated "to protect the cigarette tax revenue stream". They put them as high as they can go without seriously cutting into sales to hit the sweet spot on the Laffer Curve, where sales x taxes is a maximum. Eliminating competition that would cut into sales is part of the revenue-maximizing plan.

TMink said...

We know that e-cigs lack a proven carcinogen: smoke. Logic shows that they will be less dangerous than traditional cigarettes.


sydney said...

The goal is to protect the drug company monopoly on nicotine replacement products.

damikesc said...

So...ban JUST IN CASE?

Really? This is what the "Party of Science" wishes to pursue?

Simply put, e-cigarettes gets people off regular cigs and Progressives need the tax revenue from regular cigs BADLY to fund their bloated social systems.

Yeah, and if anybody supports this AND legalizing pot, they are complete idiots. I support legalizing pot, which is consistent with supporting this as the lesser of two evils.

Chuck said...

Has the Old Gray Lady pronounced on marijuana?

E-cigarettes are a bit of a mystery to me, but it sure is interesting to see how the pro/con lines get drawn with E-cigarettes and marijuana.

dwm said...

hmmm. would this be 'WISE CONTROLS' as in 'AFFORDABLE CARE"?

cubanbob said...

Shouldn't the nannies try to come up with some vaguely plausible notion to justify their precautionary principle regulatory scheme? How stoned to you have to be to believe that people who never smoked are going to take up E-Cigarettes and from there go in to hardcore tobacco?

Seeing Red said...

Pot doesn't have any side effects!

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Shucks. No need to be smelling up the hostess' curtains, leaving ashes all over the place, burning scars on the end table.

No need to be diddling with e-cigarrettes.

Put a little pinch of Red Man or Copenhagen in your cheek. It's like mainlining nicotine. No muss, no fuss. Stay below critical mass, and there's no need to go spittin'.

Trust me on that. I've logged hundreds of hours of jet time with an oxygen mask on and a chaw in the cheek.

Firehand said...

"Somebody is doing something, and we don't have any laws controlling it! We must DO SOMETHING!"

Lydia said...

This part of the FDA proposed rule sounds wise to me:

"It prohibits sales to children under 18, requires retailers to verify age by photo identification and penalizes those who sell to minors. It restricts vending machine sales to adult-only facilities, and it prohibits free samples."

That's because the devices are used as a delivery system for THC, a highly concentrated marijuana oil. Colorado and California and several other states already ban e-cigarette sales to minors.

Jim Howard said...

I hate e-smokers who think think that they can spew their stink anywhere they please because the snakeoil salesman told them that the unknown crap in them is harmless.

Take it to the parking lot.

bobby said...

"That's because the devices are used as a delivery system for THC, a highly concentrated marijuana oil."

Mostly, no. The temperature required to vaporize a nicotine solution is much lower than the temperature required to release THC in an activated vapor form for human inhalation.

People wishing to vape THC must use vaping equipment that is more powerful, and more expensive, than the typical nicotine-centric vaporizers.

"The real reason to control e-cigs is . . . "

The real reason is that the self-certified "experts in all things" that populate the nanny-party have arrived at a very comfortable place in relation to those people who have always refused to listen to their betters. Without question, ("the science is settled here, too!"), these self-appointed hall monitors know beyond doubt that they were anointed and empowered - by Gaia? - to guide the backwards and the ignorant to a better life. And there's no way the backwards and ignorant are going to be allowed to puff away on things that look like cigarettes when they've already told us very firmly that they disapprove of them.

See, when a smoker legally inhales water vapor carrying some nicotine through a straw, what they're really doing is giving a loud and disrespectful razzberry to the nannies.

Nannies HATE that. It's disrespectful, and it might lead people to start looking outside of the nanny-cohort for the moral mentoring we so obviously crave.

It has nothing to do with anyone's health. It's all about the nannies not taking crap from the neanderthals. "Fake but healthy cigs, like hell - they're just taunting us!"

SGT Ted said...

The Progressives seem to have revived certain aspects of the Puritans.

How come we can't have wise controls on Progressives and their creepy nannyism?

SGT Ted said...

I'm sure there's a unifying principle there, just haven't found it yet.

It's called "Authoritarianism".

Mark said...

That is the part I think all these nicotine defenders are missing, Lydia. These handheld vaporizers are quickly becoming the way to consume THC. I have seen two people return from CO trips with device and pproduct in just 4 months.

Nearly scentless, extra powerful, and no harshness o the lungs. Normalize these and cannabis can slide in under the radar on the road or elsewhere. No scent to alert anyone, you can toke up anywhere. Even school bathrooms.

Neo said...

There is nothing new here.
The country has spent half a century trying to eradicate tobacco smoking, and seems to have no problem projecting that same mentality on to e-cigarettes, but for some unknown reason seems pretty much just fine ignoring all of that for cannabis.

e99a6724-ce0f-11e3-9c59-000bcdcb8a73 said...

Restrict kids from buying e-cigs? Yeah, that'll work.


Mike F said...

The war on E-cigarettes is the intellectual equal of witch burning.
Irrational herd mentality at its worst.

vicari valdez said...

i predict that there will one day be a generation gap between e-cig and analog cigarette smokers, not unlike what you see today between cigarette and cigar/pipe smokers.

Nate Whilk said...

HoodlumDoodlum wrote, "Why are adults allowed to do things the NYT editors don't like? Embrace Control!"

That and "afflicting the comfortable". Can't let the bourgeoisie get too happy. (BTW The original context of the phrase casts a different light on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_Peter_Dunne#Legacy )

InformaticsMD said...

The government wants to control E-cigarettes, but wants to do nothing to regulate another electronic technology that is known to cause harm ... even though they don't know how much harm and admit they can't know!

Worse, this technology affects everyone, not just those who choose E-cigarettes.

See "Hypocrisy at the FDA: Let's regulate E-cigarettes ... E-medical records, E-medical ordering and related Bad Health IT? They get a gentleman's pass" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/04/hypocrisy-at-fda-lets-regulate.html

Unknown said...

In November of 2012 both my wife and myself stopped smoking and picked-up an e-cig. Threw away all the collectable ashtrays, 90% of the lighters (I'm holding on to my Zippos).Neither have had a real smoke since then. We both were 40+ year smokers with over a pack a day habit. They should be passing out e-cigs from the same bag the distribute free condoms

Nic Hit eCigs are best cigarettes said...

Electronics cigarettes is a the best approach for every smoker and very beneficial.E cigs are better than tobacco products because of their progressive design and lack of a fire source. The amount of bad chemicals is vastly lower in an e cig than tobacco cigarettes, and as a result, it is a worthy investment if you are looking to find different and new methods to smoking.Thanks for sharing this information

electronic cigarette

lagard lay said...

Govt not only makes the rules and but also break the rule, we have no power do anything on it.
Best e-liquid