The market goes up in vapor

Last July, State Senator Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, announced that she submitted a bill draft request proposing legislation for unknown regulations and possibly new taxes on e-cigarettes in Nevada. Smith said she was responding to the public’s concerns about people vaping in public.

Electronic cigarettes came to Nevada around 2008, and vaping has generated a growing subculture of enthusiasts. E-cigs use a battery to heat an element that is immersed in laboratory grade liquid nicotine with FDA-approved food flavorings. The user inhales vapor, not smoke, and exhales water vapor. It can look like smoke, but water vapor dissipates harmlessly, while smoke can linger, irritate and soil. By eliminating cancer-causing tars found in cigarette smoke, the technology may improve public health.

Those who advocate bans against tobacco use usually acknowledge that e-cigs are not the same as combustible cigarettes. Nevertheless, there are calls for banning or restricting e-cigs that depend on the “precautionary principle.” The USC Institute for Global Health, for example, wants them banned until 40 or 50 years of study on long-term health can be assessed. This is an extreme example, but local city councils that have severely restricted e-cigs usually say, “We should probably err on the side of caution.”

Why? Why not err on the side of liberty? I believe that the usual presumption should be for liberty, not caution. Politicians and bureaucrats often blend a nanny state mindset with a “protect our butts prime directive” to justify mandates and prohibitions rather than freedom. The FDA earned its reputation for protecting us when it banned Thalidomide, a drug that had been approved in Europe but was found to cause serious birth defects later.

The FDA has used this one ban to justify its lengthy, hugely expensive approval process ever since. Now the FDA wants to regulate e-cigs under its newly granted powers to regulate combustible cigarettes.

Sen. Smith wants Nevada to “debate” new taxes and controls on e-cigs and FDA proposals could be a model. Despite its Thalidomide error, Europe still has an easier drug approval process than the U.S. does. Thalidomide, cleansed of its awful side effects, is still available there for medical uses. What the precautionary principle overlooks is any calculation to measure the lost opportunities for beneficial production that over-regulation causes. It takes away the freedom for individuals to decide what risks are worth taking for themselves and loved ones.

The rationale for banning second-hand tobacco smoke is largely based on politicized junk science, but even if we allow for these bans, why should those bans affect a new, much more benign technology?

Some people are concerned that vaping looks like cigarette smoking. These are usually the same politicians who talk about curtailing freedoms in order to “send a message.” Like Samuel Goldwyn once said, “If you want to send a message, call Western Union.” The only message e-cigarette bans send is the state wants to control you for no good reason.

Nicotine, contrary to tobacco prohibitionists’ claims, has positive health benefits. Research shows it can be beneficial for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other neurological disorders. And nicotine is not very addictive by itself. It is the cocktail of chemicals found in combustible cigarettes that combine with nicotine to stimulate addictive habits in users.

E-cigs are a harm-reduction technology. Let private property owners and consumers regulate e-cig usage themselves. And let the sale of these products be subject to the normal Nevada sales taxes, without any extra “sin taxes” meant to discourage their use.