American Enterprise Institute Discusses Regulation

[mostlyclassics]

EXCELLENT !
Lock our government people in a hall and make them watch this

Sort of like trying to cure Alex of his vicious antisocial tendencies in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, though. It didn't work on Alex, just like science and sweet reason won't work with the FDA.

The ending of the flick is a tad bit rough so I won't embed it here. But go to youtube and search for "a clockwork orange ending." The clip I'm thinking of lasts 1:21.

 

[dcdozer]

My wife's first job out of college was as an intern coordinator at AEI. It is a conservative think tank, and the folks that work there are very intelligent, and very conservative. I realize for about 50% of the population that is an oxymoron, but there are very smart people on both sides of almost every argument. I haven't watched the video yet, but I will!

 

[skoony]

Good morning folks.
I finally got the time to watch the video. Not much to add that hasn't
been discussed either here or elsewhere this topic is being discussed.

Two things I would like to mention.

The topic of nicotine. There is a tendency to perhaps downplay its
role which is good but,there seems to be a lot of cat footing around
the subject especially as it pertains to children. An example.
The myth of nicotine addiction - Formindep
If there is any truth to this at all the chillin' are off the table.
There can not be any new generation of the chillin' to get addicted
to these new generation "tobacco products". Can't happen.I can see
how deeply ingrained this 'for the chillin'' concept is when it comes to
creating regulatory policy that even when it's demonstrably false it's
still the go to clincher and must have component to flesh out your
stance on the subject. I get the impression that even those on our side
are afraid to rain on that parade for fear that they won't have it when they need it.

That leads to my other concern and when the two concepts are tied together.
Harm at the population level. As the first speaker pointed out that means not
just the harm something might do to the user but to future users. He omitted
non-users but, that is part of it also. This is really frightening. I won't be here
but,what does this mean 100 years down the road? It's frightening to think
with these two concerns juxtaposed against a cashless plastic money society
what the world would look like then. Most probably everyone would be insanely
happy and content as no vestige of the concepts of freedom and liberty will
remain. The only burdens would lie on those chosen to lead us. They would
have the onerous duty of actually having to make a decision from time to
time. It's going to suck to be them.

Regards
Mike

 

[BuGlen]

The topic of nicotine. There is a tendency to perhaps downplay its
role which is good but,there seems to be a lot of cat footing around
the subject especially as it pertains to children. An example.
The myth of nicotine addiction - Formindep
If there is any truth to this at all the chillin' are off the table.
There can not be any new generation of the chillin' to get addicted
to these new generation "tobacco products". Can't happen.I can see
how deeply ingrained this 'for the chillin'' concept is when it comes to
creating regulatory policy that even when it's demonstrably false it's
still the go to clincher and must have component to flesh out your
stance on the subject. I get the impression that even those on our side
are afraid to rain on that parade for fear that they won't have it when they need it.

When it comes to actual addiction, there are a two basic clinical theories which complement each other. First, is the addictive qualities of any given substance, and second is the chemistry of the person consuming the (proven) addictive substance. For example, when I was a reckless teen experimenting with different "things", I exhibited no addiction to any of the legal or illegal substances I tried (and I tried most), where many of my friends who tried the same "things" did get addicted. On the other hand, I may have a tendency toward alcoholism (from self observation), so I tend to really limit my drinking to one or two drinks in a very social situation when it's appropriate.

From what I've read here on ECF, it's the same with nicotine (and caffeine, to which I AM addicted), and I would assume the same with any mild stimulant. It seems to depend on the individual and the level of dependency is very minor compared to certain other "things".

 

[VNeil]

It would be interesting to see a debate of the health effects of children vaping verses kids breakfast cereals that are half sugar.

 

[VNeil]

When it comes to actual addiction, there are a two basic clinical theories which complement each other. First, is the addictive qualities of any given substance, and second is the chemistry of the person consuming the (proven) addictive substance. For example, when I was a reckless teen experimenting with different "things", I exhibited no addiction to any of the legal or illegal substances I tried (and I tried most), where many of my friends who tried the same "things" did get addicted. On the other hand, I may have a tendency toward alcoholism (from self observation), so I tend to really limit my drinking to one or two drinks in a very social situation when it's appropriate.

From what I've read here on ECF, it's the same with nicotine (and caffeine, to which I AM addicted), and I would assume the same with any mild stimulant. It seems to depend on the individual and the level of dependency is very minor compared to certain other "things".

In fact there is no evidence at all that vaping nic is addictive to ANY never-smokers. None. Zero. And there are millions now in the USA alone.

 

[sofarsogood]

The last estimate I saw is that tobacco rakes in $1 trillion every year. All that money benefits somebody and most of it benefits people who are tax supported. If all the smokers switched to vaping the economic consequences would be unprecdented. For one thing it would be the mother of all tax cuts and most of the savings would go to the poor, the people who need it most. Many millions of people put food on the family table by killing smokers. It rivals the evil of any mass murdering government anywhere at any time.

I wonder what happened to that Billion Lives video. If we try to switch to vaping we'll be a billion criminals.

 

[mcclintock]

These people make a lot of good statements but still, in the end, mostly prefer some form of regulation. Even Julian Morris of Reason Foundation (0:40-), after showing a history of vaping that is entirely a product of the free market and uninhibited innovation, doesn't follow through in saying that this situation must, in some way, continue.

I have a proposal: regulated products must compete on the free market. Surely an FDA-approved product would be preferred by many users.

 

[Rossum]

These people make a lot of good statements but still, in the end, mostly prefer some form of regulation. Even Julian Morris of Reason Foundation (0:40-), after showing a history of vaping that is entirely a product of the free market and uninhibited innovation, doesn't follow through in saying that this situation must, in some way, continue.

I have a proposal: regulated products must compete on the free market. Surely an FDA-approved product would be preferred by many users.

What are you, some kind of anarchist?

 

[mcclintock]

What are you, some kind of anarchist?

The way this ought to go definitely depends on your view of the role of government. I've been saying that this is an opportunity for new ways of governing, preferably with a voluntary aspect. But it is also not a complete change from government meddling to, for once, get out of the way of something that's working better than they could have hoped (not dreamed).

When or if men with guns start coming for those distributing this life-saving technology, yes then I will become an anarchist.

 

[Kent C]

Just got around to watching this and our 'beloved' Sally Satel points out something that has been rejected around here by some (and some mods) - it's about political views. Here's her summary - a copy/paste from the transcript (in caps :- ) @38:45

ULTIMATELY THIS COMES DOWN TO A VIEW OF GOVERNMENT. IS IT AN ENABLING STATE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE, ASSISTS THEM IN MAKING THEIR OWN CHOICES WITH INFORMATION AND SUPPORT OR A MORE PATERNALISTIC STATE THAT WANTS TO USE THE LAW AND REGULATION TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR IN A PARTICULAR WAY. THIS IS AN AGE-OLD TENSION IN SOCIETY TO BE SURE BUT IT PLAYS OUT HERE.

 

[sofarsogood]

Just got around to watching this and our 'beloved' Sally Satel points out something that has been rejected around here by some (and some mods) - it's about political views. Here's her summary - a copy/paste from the transcript (in caps :- ) @38:45

ULTIMATELY THIS COMES DOWN TO A VIEW OF GOVERNMENT. IS IT AN ENABLING STATE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE, ASSISTS THEM IN MAKING THEIR OWN CHOICES WITH INFORMATION AND SUPPORT OR A MORE PATERNALISTIC STATE THAT WANTS TO USE THE LAW AND REGULATION TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR IN A PARTICULAR WAY. THIS IS AN AGE-OLD TENSION IN SOCIETY TO BE SURE BUT IT PLAYS OUT HERE.

This organization has their agenda too, even if I agree with them a lot of the time. I bet public sanitation was one of the first things government learned to do for the sake of the public's health. Without some rules about what you can do with messes there can't be cities. Without cities there isn't much civillization. Ecigs are clear cut. Individuals vape or smoke with minimal or no direct impact on everyone else. Ecigs are a tool for ending the tobacco age. The lesser of two evils by a country mile. Finally a way to end tobacco use without government programs and government interference. They should be delighted but they are in a panic. I say that's because they are so self interested that the public's health got lost somewhere a few miles back. This could all hang on the luck of the draw, what judges we get.

 

[nicnik]

This organization has their agenda too, even if I agree with them a lot of the time.

I often disagree with them, but it's organizations with similar views to theirs, that have been some of our most consistent, and well-spoken voices on vaping.

I really enjoyed the Sally Satel segment, after all the great articles she's written that I've read.

 

[Kent C]

I bet public sanitation was one of the first things government learned to do for the sake of the public's health. Without some rules about what you can do with messes there can't be cities. Without cities there isn't much civillization.

Early US was mainly an agrarian society. Quite civil actually. Some would say more civil than the 'big cities' - Boston, NY, Philly, and Charleston.... And.... in one area of sanitation - wiki:

"In the 19th century numerous American cities were afflicted with major outbreaks of disease, including cholera in 1832, 1849 and 1866 and typhoid in 1848.[17] The fast-growing cities did not have sewers and relied on contaminated wells within the city confines for drinking water supply. In the mid-19th century many cities built centralized water supply systems. However, initially these systems provided raw river water without any treatment. Only after John Snow established the link between contaminated water and disease in 1854 and after authorities became gradually convinced of that link, water treatment plants were added and public health improved. Sewers were built since the 1850s, initially based on the erroneous belief that bad air (miasma theory) caused cholera and typhoid. It took until the 1890s for the now universally accepted germ theory of disease to prevail.

However, most wastewater was still discharged without any treatment, because wastewater was not believed to be harmful to receiving waters due to the natural dilution and self-purifying capacity of rivers, lakes and the sea. Wastewater treatment only became widespread after the introduction of federal funding in 1948 and especially after an increase in environmental consciousness and the upscaling of financing in the 1970s."

Of course this has nothing to do with ecigs that don't have that environmental effect at all. (or any more than say someone wearing Chanel or Dior or smelling of beer or garlic). It's only through politics that someone can make the "argument" that ecigs are equal to (or worse than) horse manure in the streets. Which is exactly what they've done leading up to and in order to make the deeming 'palatable' to most non-vapers or anti-smokers/vapers.

Vaping is akin to the choice of what shows are we going to watch on TV tonight. Although there are politicians that would like to (and do to some extent) control that as well.

 

[Kent C]

I often disagree with them, but it's organizations with similar views to theirs, that have been some of our most consistent, and well-spoken voices on vaping.

I really enjoyed the Sally Satel segment, after all the great articles she's written that I've read.

And the guy from Reason magazine (cohort of Jacob Sullum) gave a pretty thorough history of ecigs!

 

[TooMuchOrangeTang]

...I still think that tax revenue from BT should be used to research e-cigs, and to give tax incentives to new e-cig startups.

Actually, now that I think about it....if tax credits were given year by year to e-cig companies or e-liquid companies that could raise the bar in verifiable safety, that'd be pretty cool. No one would be forced -out- of the market, and -small- but -innovative- companies would actually receive short term aid for bringing safer products to market.

 

[Kent C]

....if tax credits were given year by year to e-cig companies or e-liquid companies that could raise the bar in verifiable safety, that'd be pretty cool. No one would be forced -out- of the market, and -small- but -innovative- companies would actually receive short term aid for bringing safer products to market.

Didn't work for solar and wind...electric cars.... except lining the pockets of politicians.

 

[TooMuchOrangeTang]

Didn't work for solar and wind...electric cars.... except lining the pockets of politicians.

As someone who works on the electrical grid, I beg to differ. But I'm not going to get into it here.

 

[supertrunker]

provided raw river water without any treatment. .

A lot of the English stuff was driven by a need to keep city populations healthy - your John Snow is one example, but there were a lot of others. Birmingham was run by a family that needed workers at the time and so looked after the welfare of those workers.

Birmingham today is populated by Ramadan sucking .......s, that have no right to even be in the country, but reside there because of appeals to the European Court of Human rights. Rights that nobody else is afforded as they bomb us yet claim a need to stick their backsides in the air every 15 minutes!

T

 

[TooMuchOrangeTang]

A lot of the English stuff was driven by a need to keep city populations healthy - your John Snow is one example, but there were a lot of others. Birmingham was run by a family that needed workers at the time and so looked after the welfare of those workers.

Birmingham today is populated by Ramadan sucking .......s, that have no right to even be in the country, but reside there because of appeals to the European Court of Human rights. Rights that nobody else is afforded as they bomb us yet claim a need to stick their backsides in the air every 15 minutes!

T

Side note: John Snow? C'mon, that's awesome.