Bootleggers, Baptists, and E-cigs

[CarolT]

Just to be clear.... this was written 'about' the point of view. The people writing it are not 'true believers in gov't lies' - just the opposite

They believe in "the harmful combustion-induced chemicals associated with burned tobacco," and show no glimmer of awareness about how the government's bogus studies are designed to falsely blame smoking for diseases caused by infection. So, they believe.

 

[Kent C]

However many of their followers are just as I described in my post.

And to Carol T....

I of course have no way of knowing that. Regulation magazine is really an 'insider view' of regulation from a rather objective point of view vs. the bulk of policy analyses from other sources that want more regulation - Brookings Institute on the Left and Heritage Foundation on the Right. Cato is mostly libertarian. I'm guessing that it has a widespread readership including those who might want regulation but want to find out what the actual regulation is, rather than how the left and right spin it. It is one of the hardest publications for me to read because of the detail of the minutiae of regulations that they go into in most articles.

Earlier Regulation articles on smoking have been some of the best against secondhand smoke - still railed against by tobacco control types and articles on how the 'smoking related death' statistic is also fudged. ANTZ attempt to tie them to the tobacco companies of course.

Show Me the Documents - Reason.com

 

[Mossy]

I think they came to the right conclusion whoever;s side they may be on.....last paragraph.

"Bootlegger/Baptist political forces will not rest until e-cigs are
subject to the state and federal taxes that apply to cigarettes and
e-cig revenues become subject to MSA rules. There is an obvious
irony here. To the extent that e-cigs provide a less hazardous
alternative to consumers who seek to break their smoking habit,
regulations that limit e-cig competition produce a social cost
measured in lost opportunities to improve human health. Regulatory
actions that limit e-cig marketability introduce uncertainty
for yet-to-be-discovered smoking alternatives that also destabilize
the markets for traditional tobacco and smoking cessation products.
For the sake of human health and freedom of choice, such
innovation should be encouraged, not restricted."
I think, thank you for saying it.

 

[CarolT]

And to Carol T....

I of course have no way of knowing that. Regulation magazine is really an 'insider view' of regulation from a rather objective point of view vs. the bulk of policy analyses from other sources that want more regulation - Brookings Institute on the Left and Heritage Foundation on the Right. Cato is mostly libertarian. I'm guessing that it has a widespread readership including those who might want regulation but want to find out what the actual regulation is, rather than how the left and right spin it. It is one of the hardest publications for me to read because of the detail of the minutiae of regulations that they go into in most articles.

Earlier Regulation articles on smoking have been some of the best against secondhand smoke - still railed against by tobacco control types and articles on how the 'smoking related death' statistic is also fudged. ANTZ attempt to tie them to the tobacco companies of course.

Show Me the Documents - Reason.com

I just took that quote about "the harmful combustion-induced chemicals associated with burned tobacco" from the article itself. As I said, there's no glimmer of awareness that the whole story isn't like the government pretends.

 

[Kent C]

I just took that quote about "the harmful combustion-induced chemicals associated with burned tobacco" from the article itself. As I said, there's no glimmer of awareness that the whole story isn't like the government pretends.

Ok. Here's the whole quote:

"This happy Bootlegger/Baptist equilibrium is now threatened by
the exploding sales of e-cigs, a new technology for delivering nicotine
to all who want it without simultaneously bringing the harmful
combustion-induced chemicals associated with burned tobacco."

I'm guessing - and it's just a guess - but based on my experience with how I assess and how I've seen others assess - what they think, not what any gov't pretends, the difference between (and why they vape) ecigarettes vs. smoking cigarettes. So evidently, the authors have likely read some of the same things about why 'all who want it'(nicotine) without the effects of smoking. Otherwise, why change?

Are all who vape, just dupes? ... except for you of course.... That's really a rhetorical question.... I have no intent on responding further....

 

[CarolT]

The problem is that the anti-vapers will use the same fraud the anti-smokers use against smoking - blaming vaping for diseases that are really caused by infection. Most vapers are drawn from the ranks of smokers, so they exploit the circumstance that smokers/vapers tend to be less wealthy, and less wealthy people are more likely to have been exposed to infections and at younger ages, particularly childhood, before they even start smoking/vaping. Cytomegalovirus is a big one - even when they try to pawn off as much of its effects as possible on "conventional risk factors," the population attributable fraction of 40% in cardiovascular disease is as large as the supposed smoking risk, and almost twice as many as either hypercholesterolaemia or hypertension! Yet the public knows nothing...
Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty
Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US

 

[Jman8]

I think they came to the right conclusion whoever;s side they may be on.....last paragraph.

"Bootlegger/Baptist political forces will not rest until e-cigs are
subject to the state and federal taxes that apply to cigarettes and
e-cig revenues become subject to MSA rules. There is an obvious
irony here. To the extent that e-cigs provide a less hazardous
alternative to consumers who seek to break their smoking habit,
regulations that limit e-cig competition produce a social cost
measured in lost opportunities to improve human health. Regulatory
actions that limit e-cig marketability introduce uncertainty
for yet-to-be-discovered smoking alternatives that also destabilize
the markets for traditional tobacco and smoking cessation products.
For the sake of human health and freedom of choice, such
innovation should be encouraged, not restricted."
I think, thank you for saying it.

For the sake of taking this debate to the other level that it constantly dances on the line of, one needs to expound upon that bolded part or realize they haven't really explained anything. For an anti-tobacco article could say all it has to say and conclude with, For the sake of human health and freedom of choice, such innovation should be discouraged, not allowed."

And all those that support such anti efforts, or lean in that direction, will praise the conclusion. Just as I support this bolded part. But I also recognize my bias, and also recognize this hasn't explained why it ought to encouraged, all that well. IOW, it is preaching to the choir.

Until we get past that line where things become philosophical more than sound bite rhetoric meant to inspire the masses, the political choice that the debate appears to come down to is: a) are eCigs a smoking alternative as a recreational choice (mostly to only) or b) are eCigs an alternative as a health choice (only)?

Crossing the line I speak of would go into recreational choice and healthy choice as if they aren't completely distinct pursuits toward happiness. Fairly certain I can make the case that they are one in the same, and fairly certain the propaganda war rests on keeping them as separate and as distinct as humanly possible.