Prior to watching
this conference, I didn't have much of an
opinion on vaping. From the little I'd read, vaping seemed
unhealthy, but healthier than cigarettes, and those are readily
available for public consumption.
I'll admit, I wasn't initially
interested in the issues around the product, and was drawn to the
President's articulated argument against banning e-cigarette flavors.
During the televised meeting a number of organizations invested in
defending children (like the American Lung Association, the American
Cancer Society, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids) argued
against flavors. The main producer of e-cigarettes, Juul, wanted to
ban flavors, while a minority of attendees (including one of Juul's
competitors, NJOY) argued in favor of flavor. Watching grown adults
defend vaping, writing off its effect on kids, even while admitting
they wouldn't want their kids touching their product was appalling.
Their argument for flavor was simple. Proponents argue vaping
is safer than smoking, but medical
professionals and scientists
say they aren't so sure. Adults will relapse to cigarettes if
flavors disappear. E-cigarette companies (not Juul), also argued
with absurdly inflated numbers, that hundreds of thousands of workers
would lose their jobs, and thousands of stores would close if
companies stopped selling flavored vapes.
The arguments against flavor was more
convincing. Children are attracted to flavored liquids, not
cigarettes. According to Mitt Romney and the
Truth Initiative, roughly sixty percent of kids
don't realize vapes contain nicotine. They just thought it was, as
Senator “Unicorn Poop” flavored water. Even short use leads to
addiction, and a life long dependency. Is it worth offering adults
additional flavors, at the risk of imprisoning a new generation of
Americans in addiction?
The issue of smoking, vaping, and
whether any company should be able to sell
a poisonous product with kid marketing is a
serious topic which should be debated. Unfortunately, the President
keeps making the argument that banning a product doesn't prevent
people for accessing it. Trump makes this point multiple times,
saying, “If we take out flavors, won't they just be made
illegally.”
The allies of e-cigarettes egged on the
President, by accusing the ALA, ACA, and CTFK of coordinating with
Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg in an attempt to
sabotage Trump. Watching a profit seeking organization which sell
poison (even if it is a lesser poison) accuse agencies working on the
behalf of child of playing politics, was one of the most obscene
things I'd ever seen. They humored his argument, saying that halting
the sale of black market products would be difficult. They shouldn't
have.
The President's argument assumes that
if the government bans X, people will purchase it anyways, but
illegally Therefore, don't ban X, because the legal product is safer
and can be taxed. The argument is illogical because it doesn't deal
with the product at all. This debate technique can be used to
shutdown discussion of any topic, and has been used by Republicans
and Democrats alike to protect their policy preferences. It allows
partisans to avoid talking about the merits of the product.
Society should ban certain products and
choices. Voters and their representatives decide together to ban
that which they deem immoral. Prohibiting easy access to items will
not prevent everyone from having them. It will cause people to seek
illegal versions or procedures. That is not a good argument against banning something, in and of itself. It is absurd not to ban
something because some people will acquire it regardless. By the
same argument, actions which are currently banned shouldn't be legal because people are already preforming them illegally.
What citizens should do is vote for
representatives that support their preferences. One of the strangest
issues today is the divergence between public opinion and the law.
Gerrymandering, racial voter suppression, a national media which
continually pushes the opinion that progressive policies are
unpopular, and a system which proportionally awards more
Representatives to smaller rural states, continually frustrates the
priority of the many.
This article offers no opinion on what
should be banned, just a refutation of an illogical error. It doesn't argue for banning a particular product, or rescinding an active ban. It rejects a justification. Using the
“we can't ban anything, because people will buy it illegally
anyways,” argument would result in access to everything. It would
tear down age restrictions on products as well. I say this as a
person who opposes censorship, but recognizes that the best defense
is in the details. I don't say: we should allow people to access any
book because they will find a way to read it anyways.
Fortunately, someone else at the
meeting recognized the President's error. Penny Nance, the President
and CEO of Concerned Women for America, rebuked the Presidents
argument, saying “When you make something illegal, there is always
the black market. We can say that about anything. We can say that
about heroin.”
In conclusion don't deploy the laziest,
illogical defense in support of your policies. Or you may end up
sounding like a pandering politician.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment