Even If Compassionate, Trump's Vaping Ban Is Dead Inside

Mr. Trump has declared war against vaping flavored e-cigarettes. He did so, perhaps, out of not unreasonable motives: many people have sickened from their use, particularly teen agers, and there have been several fatalities attributed to this product. Said our fearless leader: “We can’t allow people to get sick. And we can’t have our kids be so affected.” Who, then, would not support our President’s latest initiative?

But this policy is dead from the neck up, despite his possibly good intentions. (We all know what the road to hell is paved with.)

First of all, there are almost one half million deaths attributed to regular, ordinary, unflavored tobacco cigarettes. If the Donald succeeds in banning vaping, it is more than likely that its users will turn to this far more dangerous practice. This is akin to prohibiting marijuana, and thus encouraging people to engage in heroin or cocaine. Far more people die from accidents in bathtubs (almost 5,000, annually), than the purported half dozen from vaping. Are we from now on to be limited to showers, Mr. President?

Secondly, what is with this concern about flavoring, which particularly seems to concern the present Administration.  Yes, vaping with the taste of cherry, vanilla, chocolate, menthol, mint, etc., renders e-cigarettes more attractive. But what about flavored vodka? Ban it? Then, ice cream, sodas, milkshakes, are all flavored. If the “logic” of this policy is consistently implemented, not only will these deserts have to lose their taste (can you imagine tasteless ice cream? ugh) but will have to be banned outright, since they lead to obesity, which kills far more people (300,000 annually), teenagers certainly included, than vaping.

Are we to be reduced to eating rabbit food, such as lettuce, carrots, tomatoes, kale, spinach, etc.? It would appear that Mr. Trump is supping with those who want to ban meat, in order to save the planet from cow flatulence. He is approaching this from a different direction, drug prohibition, not climate change, but is arriving at a similar destination.

Then there is the question of good intentions. Economists always ask, quo bono? Who benefits from this latest undermining of our precious liberties? It is none other than the large-scale purveyors of cigarettes, made of tobacco. It is the old economic standby of restricted entry rising once again to bite us in the rear end. We have already seen this in taxi firms wanting to ban Uber and Lyft, the hotel industry’s critical reaction to Air-B-N-B, the opposition of cattle states to margarine, the attempts of doctors to limit entry into their field, which would drive down physicians’ salaries. This is a sorry tale of state monopoly corporate capitalism, and it is not a pretty sight.

Of course, it cannot be denied that there is the issue of children involved here. Patriotism may be the last refuge of the scoundrel, but youngsters are certainly the low blow of the prohibitionists. Yes, of course, young teens should be kept away from all cigarettes, of whatever type or variety. But we already have laws against child abuse on the books; we need do no more in this direction.

Have we learned nothing from alcohol prohibition which gave rise to young Italian men fighting over turf and to “bathtub gin” which killed thousands? Have we not learned anything from our ban on addictive drugs, which has led to the specter of young black men shooting each other in gang wars, and to poisonous products? Nowadays, we can all purchase beer, wine and spirits secure in the knowledge of quality, and no one is shooting anyone else in this industry. Yet, no one can deny that these too are harmful, and should be kept away from youngsters.

If people are so stupid as to vape either flavored e-cigarettes or those made of tobacco, why do we allow them to vote in political elections? Turning this around, if we do allow them to do so, and we should, then we are implicitly acquiescing in the notion that they are, and should be, free agents; not to be jailed for the “capitalist act between consenting adults” in the words of Robert Nozick, of buying, selling and using, of all things, relatively harmless (compared to tobacco) e-cigarettes.

The point is, our democratic institutions are incompatible with paternalism. By all means let us keep these harmful substance out of the hands of children. But not by law, Mr. Trump, from adults!

Nor is our present president the only one guilty of these nanny state initiatives. Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is now a Democratic candidate for this high office, is also on record in this regard. Not for banning vaping; rather, for enacting legislation to prohibit 16 ounce soft drinks. Will it be tweedle-dee versus tweedle-do in the election of November of 2020? Shudder.