Posted on 03/05/2014 9:39:27 AM PST by Kaslin
A handful of Democratic Senators are up in arms about the Golden Globe awards. No, they’re not upset that Breaking Bad beat out House of Cards for best Television Drama Series. Instead, they’re fuming about a few actors using electronic cigarettes during the award show broadcast. They’ve fired off a strongly worded letter to NBC Universal and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for “glamorizing” the use of e-cigarettes. And now they’re going even further in advocating for a ban on these products in the U.S. Capitol.
Banning consumption of electronic cigarettes in public has become a troubling trend of paternalistic lawmakers across the country. Such prohibitions have been passed in big cities like New York and Chicago, relatively small towns like Petaluma, California and Somerset, Massachusetts, and even a few states, like New Jersey and North Dakota.
These nanny-state bans, which typically forbid the use of e-cigarettes in public places and workplaces, have grown in popularity despite evidence that e-cigarettes can help reduce tobacco related illnesses and deaths by more than 98 percent, according to data from the R Street Institute. In fact, a researcher at Cancer Research UK recently said that e-cigarettes could save millions of lives. Even the editorial board at the Washington Post acknowledged that “e-cigarettes might be a useful tool to reduce harm rather than a gateway to a life of smoking.”
This promising development isn’t slowing down these Senators, including Richard Durbin (D-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and their push for a ban on e-cigarettes at the U.S. Capitol. Such a wrongheaded move would be based on little, if any scientific support. In fact, the Senators acknowledge the paucity of evidence in their letter and suggest the ban should be implemented as “an appropriate precautionary step.” This type of “we have to ban them to figure out what’s in them” mentality makes little sense – especially given the potential of e-cigarettes to improve public health.
Meanwhile some of these same busybody lawmakers are also employing pressure tactics on Walgreens, Rite Aid, and the trade association representing chain drug stores to emulate CVS by no longer selling tobacco products in their establishments. Though e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco, the Senators have labeled them as “tobacco products” previously so it’s safe to assume that they would like to see e-cigarettes banned from television, government property, and drug stores.
What’s more, there’s another smell of hypocrisy in the air, as the lawmakers’ letter to the drug stores also recommends “increasing access to tobacco cessation devices.” If the Senators’ goal is harm reduction, they should promote, not discourage the use of e-cigarettes.
A study conducted in Italy showed that over half of smokers experienced a 50 percent reduction in the use of combustible cigarettes when e-cigarettes were offered as an alternative. This is highly encouraging news for public health advocates. For those concerned about the adverse health impact of e-cigarettes, the previously mentioned R Street study found e-cigarettes had the same trace amounts of carcinogens as other quitting aids already approved by the FDA (gum, patches, etc.) In reality, the risk posed by e-cigarettes appears to be on par with the smoking cessation devices these Senators are trumpeting.
It seems fairly clear that e-cigarettes offer smokers a much safer alternative to traditional cigarettes that can help them significantly reduce their smoking habit (which is why taxing them like combustible cigarettes is also a terrible idea). Yet Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, Brown, and a handful of their colleagues seem intent on stamping out e-cigarettes wherever they possibly can.
There may be a legitimate role for the government to play here – for instance, working with retailers to ensure that nicotine products aren’t sold to minors. But these Senators are going far beyond prudent rulemaking by leaning on television networks and private stores to do what they think is best – even if their demands aren’t supported by scientific evidence. If they legitimately are looking for ways to improve public health and reduce the use of conventional cigarettes, they should find the rapid growth of e-cigarettes encouraging. If they are merely grandstanding, we’d be better served if they’d simply butt out.
Whatever Leftists dislike, they ban.
Whatever Leftists approve of, they make mandatory.
How thoughtless and inconsiderate these Hollywood elites can be !!!!
If they wanted to smoke without getting democrat pussies all upset they could have just burned a few doobies or fired up their crack pipes.
the fact is these are the best solution the anti-smoking folks have dreamed of, but because govt isn’ygetting tobacco taxes off them andthe anti-smoking groups aren’ t getying money fom them, they oppose the solution they said they have bee wanting for decades.
proves a lot about the cancer groups and the anti-smoking groups, and government.
Nicotine suppositories. That’s got to be the next big trend.
Wait a minute. If nicotine addicts can sit there and use their drug of choice without consequences, even at work, what about everyone else?
I might like a shot of Jack now and then at work.
Can we all use our drug of choice whenever we want?
:-)
“Nicotine suppositories. That’s got to be the next big trend.”
Brandy inhalers.
I work in a government building which has already banned e-cigs but that doesn’t really upset me as “lighting one up” in your cubicle is probably as inappropriate as coming in each day reeking of cologne.
I wouldn’t feel good about someone lighting up e-cigs during a church service or in court, for example. But I have no problem with them being around in social environments like restaurants, bars, parties and, of course, anything outdoors.
My problem with some smokers is they think their right to smoke trumps anyone else’s right not to smell their smoke. That, more than anything, is what pushed smokers outdoors into the cold. Nothing will ever appease the anti-smoking zealots but smoking advocates would be better off finding a happy medium with the rest of us than trying to recapture the 1950s and 60s where even doctors were puffing while seeing their patients.
An old, old joke comes to mind:
Patient: Hey Doc - Those pills you prescribed for me tasted terrible and, for all the good they did, I might as well have shoved them up my a$$.
Doctor: Those weren't pills. They were suppositories.
I suspect that much of the political opposition to e-cigs has little to do with political affiliation and everything to do with the fact that the tobacco and pharmaceutical giants have been bribing our elected representatives for years and e-cigs are a threat to their business interests.
A fairly good article (rare, when dealing with this subject), although I do find it ironic to refer to the patch, nicotine inhalers, Chantix, and the gum as “smoking cessation devices”, since their track record is so poor at actually causing smoking to cease.
I do take issue with the presumption that regulation with respect to minors is an inherently good idea. Sweden’s experience with Snus shows fairly conclusively that access to safer forms of tobacco is the best preventative of youth smoking, and it isn’t even close. It stands to reason that e-Cigs, despite not being a tobacco product, would have a similar effect on youth smoking. Not only is the “gateway” theory blatantly false, there is a preponderance of anecdotal evidence that it is actually the exact opposite — access to products that include nicotine discourage, rather than encourage, progression to more dangerous (and addictive) forms of tobacco.
Before anyone says “but nicotine is addictive”, remember to cite a clinical study showing such a thing. Once again, the anecdotal evidence indicates that nicotine, in and of itself, has no real addictive properties.
Nobody expects to recapture the 50s and 60s. With the anti-smoking zealots, though, it's a never-ending series of 'finding a happy medium' (which then leads to the next temporary 'happy medium'):
1. Separate smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants
2. No smoking at all in restaurants.
3. No smoking in any building except bars.
4. No smoking in bars.
5. No smoking within some number of feet of any door or window.
6. In some cities, no smoking on sidewalks, open air parks, and beaches.
What's next?
bfl
“Can we all use our drug of choice whenever we want?”
As long as it doesn’t impact your operation of a motor vehicle, which nicotine does not.
I saw a great cartoon once that showed a couple in a restaurant complaining to the waiter the the people at the next table were TALKING about smoking.
.
They did but it was all about the rest of you in the first place.
Evidence the first compromise with the nico nazis, the smokers were sent to the back of the plane.
Then they prevented from smoking on the plan. Then they were prevented from smoking in the terminal. Then they were banned from smoking within a hundred feet of the terminal.
The compromises continued with the continued demands of the nico nazis...........so when you suggest that the smoking advocates need to reach a "happy medium" just to appease the rest of you, there isn't any and you the rest of you have proven that time and time and time and time again..........
They’re not getting their cut...............because the e-cigs are putting a dent in collection of tobacco taxes.
Nanny state ping
Smoking outside is the happy medium, but that’s not good enough for smoke nazis claiming that that bit of exposure is going to harm them.
An expectation of never smelling it is unreasonable just like an expectation of being exposed to speech you find offensive is.
And folks right to say something does NOT end at your ears.
“What’s next?”
It’s actually worse depending on where you are in the country. There have been efforts w/varying degrees of success to:
-allow employers not hire smokers, even if not smoking on the job
-have condominiums where smokers cannot smoke within their own units
-disallow parents from smoking in the car if children are present.
So let’s see, it’s not just keeping smoking confined to smaller and smaller areas, it’s about denying them employment, housing, and the right to a family.
Sounds pretty nazi to me. I’m just surprised they haven’t started bulldozing the bodies of smokers into mass graves yet.
THAT’s what would be next.
“...fuming about a few actors using electronic cigarettes during the award show broadcast...”
They complained about e-Cigarettes, but nothing else about the Hollywood weirdo whackjobs? A constant freakshow parade of perverts, drug addicts, etc. is all good. But e-cigarettes is just waaaaay too much to handle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.