Thread: Has American Lung Association gone MADD?

Nanny-staters will be nanny-staters, so these links are just a bit of background:

LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP: Tobacco-related products under fire | Grand Forks Herald | Grand Forks, North Dakota

Several States Attempt to Ban E-Cigarettes - Review Specialist Outraged

Anywho, I'll start off by saying that I am probably a more ardent proponent of free markets than just about anyone you will find. I firmly believe that demand in general and, more specifically, market reaction to imposed obstacles spur untold amounts of innovation. A common example is how technology has frequently been spurred onward by warfare and another unfortunate example is the sophistication of black market enterprises keeping the price of street drugs relatively stable in the face of untold billions of wasted tax dollars in the war against drug users. But, other examples include the open source software movement, energy efficient products, and the exchange of some free information under oppressive, censoring regimes (with the commodity being information).

So, when I read about the idea of "e-cigarettes", I thought this was a brilliant example of such a thing. For years, you no doubt had the iron-fisted lobby of big tobacco putting the kibosh on such a concept, but in response to recent fashion trends inspiring moral-based howling under the guise of "public health" and the resultant "sin taxes", innovators got busy - IP laws and legislation be damned.

What a concept. It may have some wrinkles to work out and it isn't yet FDA approved, but the idea is that you have a product that offers to play Solomon but without actually cutting anyone in half. If it could be worked out, you would have, in essence, a harmless or relatively harmless cigarette. Smokers can opt out of ridiculous and actuarially unjustified taxes that have become exorbitant, more serious health concerns and their recent status as pariahs. Those concerned with their health or the health of loved ones need not worry about second through tenth hand smoke or the drain that smokers supposedly put on the system with health concerns. So, it's probably time to wrap up my post, now that everyone can live happily ever after through the wonders of the free market, innovation, and compromise.

Except...
The American Lung Association has come out in full force by sending lobbyists to various state legislators to argue against the electronic cigarette.

Originally Posted by American Lung Association

...yes there are fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm them and have no intention of quitting, just switching.

So, the ALA admits that these e-cigarettes contain fewer toxic chemicals than cigarettes. They acknowledge that they can be used to help people quit smoking. And, interestingly, the American Heart Association says that nicotine is "safe" in non-smoked forms (I'll go with them, since nicotine by itself is primarily a stimulant and similar to caffeine). And, the reaction, in light of these apparently impressive concessions...? THERE-OUGHTA-BE-A-LAW!!!!!! BAN IT!!!!!

I was as perplexed by this. This strikes me as the equivalent of an opponent of gay marriage lobbying to ban a pill that 'cured' homosexuality or an environmentalist lobbying to ban a new product that turned pollution into hemp bracelets. But then I read through the quote again, and the parts that struck me are bolded.

"Chemicals that should not be in your system."
"...no intention of quitting."

So, what is the issue, exactly? Why would an organization that purports to advocate for public health and safety argue to ban something that could be invaluable in public health and safety rather than even allowing it to be studied or improved? Well, the only thing I can think of is that said organization's primary goal is not actually public health and safety. This only makes sense if said organization/movement has pulled a MADD - gotten so good at the business of keeping itself in business that it cannot countenance something potentially reducing its role in society, even if the outcome is good. And, further like MADD, it has discarded its original purpose and become a temperance and prohibition organization. The point of no return has been passed. The important issue is not health, saving lives, or public welfare. The important issue is that they are going to impose their values on you, and you'd damned well better not try to stop them.

So, what's next here? My guess is that these bans will succeed and quickly. If it were just a matter of the ALA and its quickly expanding credibility deficit, it probably wouldn't matter, but here is now I see things unfolding. Because of its position, ALA finds itself in the (comical) position of having its interests squarely aligned with Big Tobacco. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Nothing is more of a threat to either party's existence than this line of product. And, there is one more tried and true party with a vested interest in torpedoing this effort: politicians. If an alternative to an enormous revenue windfall emerges ( Wisconsin Not Only State Where Smokers Pay to Help Budget - 1330 WHBL ), politicans managing budgets get kicked squarely in the pocketbook. All these years of short-sighted, masturbatory tax hikes on sin products have finally come back to bite them in the ass by spurring innovative alternatives. So, what happens?

Big Tobacco bankrolls it to eliminate the competition, Nanny-Staters spin it because nobody should be smoking, whether smoke is involved or not (it's wrong, I tells ya, WRONG), and politicians pass it (better than ramming a property tax hike down the throats of constituents). And, "it", is a law guaranteeing the status quo. All three parties want smokers to continue smoking, but in alley corners and while receiving dirty looks. Because while all three entities disagree on what it is that they want in terms of overarching fashion and moralizing, they can all agree that any solution to the problem is the worst thing for them.

So, anyone still interested in arguing that smoking laws are about public health and welfare? You'd better hurry - that plane is boarding as we speak.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I HATE the smell of cigarettes. I'd like to see them randomly laced with cyanide or plutonium or sulfuric acid.

Two out of three ain't bad. On another note, as I set my cigarette down to type this, screw you. I'll smoke wherever the hell I want to.

Or wherever the hell the state will let me. Where am I allowed to smoke now?