Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fracking, Vaping, and the New Puritans
Around the turn of the millennium, it was conventional wisdom that nicotine was the worst possible thing for you, and that the world economy was on the brink of Peak Oil, which would soon send energy prices on a permanent upward spiral and slowly grind the economy to a halt. Since then, two innovations have challenged these beliefs: vaping and fracking, both of which have attracted controversy.
Vaping provides nicotine, the chemical that gets you hooked on tobacco, without the tar. Fracking revived the American natural gas industry, causing a major move away from coal and toward natural gas, and made the United States self-sufficient in oil, in the process turning North Dakota into Saudi Arabia with lutefisk.
Both these innovations were unexpected, and both were imperfect improvements on the status quo. While vaping is not nearly as bad for you as smoking, nicotine is still addictive. Switching from coal to natural gas is an improvement in terms of carbon emissions (a major reason why the United States is the only developed nation to meet its Paris Accords goal) but burning natural gas still releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thereby ruining Greta Thunberg’s childhood.
Both have faced a backlash from politicians. More practical Democrats, such as John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, have made their peace with fracking, but on the party’s liberal wing, support for banning it entirely is almost mandatory. Vaping has attracted bipartisan concern, to the point where the panic has led some to switch back to smoking.
H.L. Mencken famously defined Puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Today, we might define Puritanism – at least with these issues- the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might come up with a solution you didn’t have in mind.
Published in Domestic Policy
The famous January 2017 Intelligence Assessment regarding the 2016 election campaign asserted in the appendix (which, of course, no one paid attention to) that the Kremlin was actively supporting opposition to fracking in the U.S. in order to weaken America so I am shocked, just shocked, to find Democrats acting as stooges for Putin!
A minor quibble. The US had no Paris Accords goals.
Smoking is a choice; addiction is a choice.
“The main reason given by smokers for their failure to stop smoking is that they see themselves as addicted, and many smokers are very willing to describe themselves as “addicts” on the back of cessation failures. From a functional perspective, attributing smoking to a physical disease is attractive because the ‘addict’ label allows smokers to claim diminished responsibility for their behavior, diminished free will to control their behavior, and so, justification for discontinuing their efforts to quit without assistance.”
And don’t forget the behavioral aspect of smoking. Do anything 20-30 times a day, for decades; you will find it difficult to stop….
I’m sorry, what was this thread about again?
All humans should promptly assume room temperature to save the climate. We all exhale that pollutant, carbon dioxide, all day every day. Oh, yeah, and so do all the animals on Earth! All animal life must die! So who would be left to enjoy the perfect climate? Only those plants. But, without all the CO2 emitters, all the plants would die!
That’s now how I remember it. #1 was Y2K. #2 was smoking. #3 was second-hand smoking. Nowhere on the list was nicotine or second-hand nicotine. The danger of smoking was the *smoke* (ie particulate matter)
I think it is about some kids that were vaping some frac’ing juice and listening to Prince.
Can’t they just plant more trees in North Dakota? Wouldn’t that take care of the extra CO2? Or do I have my basic science wrong?
I smoked for about 15 years and towards the end 3 packs a day. I quit 37 years ago. Take it from me I was physically addicted. I had the shakes,couldn’t sleep even my bowel habits and condition changed when I quit. Of course this was all out weighed by good things happening. I would say it took a month or six weeks to get over the physical aspect of quitting.
Good for you, Cheese! It’s different for everybody; I applaud all attempts and methods.
And one of the most effective methods is vaping! These attacks on a godsend are woefully misguided.
Great work! This paragraph is especially outstanding.
Seconded.
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that angry rejection of partial solutions indicates control issues.
If trees liked North Dakota they’d already be there.
I’ll argue that the difference for me personally is that fracking has been a net positive, and vaping a net negative.
The reason: my older kids would never have considered smoking. They think it is disgusting. But they vape. They did not take up smoking as teenagers. They just one day found themselves old enough to buy vaping products and figured it was cool (“…you charge it by USB!” one told me). “It is better for you than cigarettes!” they say. “But it isn’t better for you than doing neither!” rails dear old dad. And of course, there’s no chance of your pack of Marlboro 100s spontaneously catching fire in your purse or backpack, as happened to my niece.
I’ll agree: if you smoke cigarettes and can’t kick the habit, vaping might be a less bad alternative. But in my own life I’ve seen people take up vaping just because they think it isn’t “that bad”.
What does any of that have to do with government regulation?
Nothing. Why do you ask?
Just to be sure. The topic of regulation had come up in the OP.
That is a great line. Well done, Mr. Ditzler.
All of the issues have to be understood as moves to enhance Washington political power. The substance of the issue is usually irrelevant, it’s all about Washington power. Of course the folks who are manipulated may actually care about the substance of an issue, but those who create and manage the issue understand what they’re doing. What have they done to reduce Washington power in the last 20 or 30 years? What issue has the left undertaken that is presented the same today as it was even just ten years ago?
The British magazine Lancet did a thought experiment regarding vaping. Just on the cancer causing nature of cigarettes alone, their conclusion was that a switch to vaping would reduce the societal harms of tobacco by 90 to 95 percent.
When governments realized that they began to treat vaping as smoking, banning it in public places (despite the fact that the only exhalation a person vaping has is water vapor).
I have come to the conclusion that governments hate vaping because it can move people away from smoking thus reducing cigarette tax revenues and settlement dollars from tobacco companies.
Having people live longer is also a net negative for governments having to provide benefits to the aged.
The taxes on vaping products already account for any loss of revenue. They are dimwitted, but they are thorough.
No, they don’t. There are two taxes on tobacco. The sales tax that users pay and the “settlement” that tobacco companies pay to states to fund expanded state healthcare mandates. Of course this money also happens to come out of user’s pockets. Taxes on vaping products doesn’t even come close to the the settlement dollars.
I don’t think it’s about the taxes. People just naturally dislike other people enjoying themselves doing things that the first person doesn’t enjoy. In centuries past it was drinking coffee and dancing the waltz.
Singapore recently banned vaping. I cannot be because vaping is more dangerous that smoking. They have a very high rate of smokers and the evident desire is that they die earlier.