E-Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke, Vaping, and the Price of FDA Regulations

|

Earlier this week, the FDA proposed regulations for electronic cigarettes, which Reason's Jacob Sullum says are mostly mild but could set the stage for more expansive bans later.

This evening, have a nice vape and enjoy Reason TV's documentary short about e-cigarettes, those who would ban them, and the science—or lack thereof—underlying the public health crusade against them.

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer: "E-Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke, Vaping, and the Price of FDA Regulations"

Originally published on October 29, 2013. Original text is below:

Electronic cigarettes are creating a frenzy among politicians, health experts, and the media. Local banson using e-cigarettes indoors are popping up all over the country, and many interest groups are clamoring for top-down FDA regulations, which are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

"E-Cigarettes currently exist in a complete no-man's land," says Heather Wipfli, associate director for the USC Institute for Global Health. Skeptics such as Wipfli worry about the lack of long-term data available because the product is so new.

But according to the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association's Greg Conley, calls for regulation are "a perverse interpretation of the precautionary principle." The precautionary principle holds that until all possible risks are assessed, new technologies shouldn't be allowed to move forward.

Conley points to preliminary studies, like this one from Drexel University, which confirm these smokeless, tobacco-less, tar-less products are not a cause for concern—or at least not a cause for the same concerns that accompany traditional cigarettes and second-hand smoke. 

"That [Drexel University] professor concluded that there was absolutely no worry about risks to bystanders from e-cigarette vapor," says Conley.

The ingredients of e-cigarettes certainly have very little in common with tobacco cigarettes. Nicotine, the only ingredient found in both products, is mainly used to wean smokers off traditional cigarettes and is not one of the harm-inducing ingredients associated with lung cancer in smokers. The other ingredients in the "e-juice" at the core of e-cigarettes are propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and food flavorings— all of which are used in other food products.

"All we are doing is steaming up food ingredients to create a vapor," says Ed Refuerzo, co-owner of The Vape Studio in West Los Angeles. The Vape Studio is one of the many boutique e-cigarette shops popping up that might be significantly affected or even shut down by both local legislation and FDA regulations.

Conley says it's the currently unregulated customizability of the e-juice that allows these small businesses to thrive. "The availability of liquids is what is allowing a lot of these small stores to open and prosper because they are able to mix their own liquid and sell it to consumers without having to go through a big manufacturing process," says Conley.

The higher costs of complying with regulations would most likely be passed on to consumers, which would impact people who are looking towards e-cigarettes as an effective way to quit smoking. 

"We're using technology, and that's what we do in America, we use technology to solve really complicated problems," says Craig Weiss, president and CEO of NJOY. NJOY is a leading manufacturer of electronic cigarettes  – and a donor to Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason TV. Weiss says that despite regulations, the potential of the industry is only just starting to be realized.  

"The electronic industry is growing at quite a dramatic pace. It's more than doubled each of the last four or five years," says Weiss. "This piece of technology could have such an potential impact on the world."  

About 6 minutes.

NEXT: Amuse Yourself with Embattled Calif. State Sen. Yee's Voter Guide Statement

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know what’s funny about e-cigarette bans? *Cigarette* bans are predicated on the idea that second-hand smoke is harmful and therefore this is a public health issue.

    Once the precedent was set however, its (ridiculously) quickly morphed into a blanket power to ban anything with the most tenuous link to a health hazard.

    Giving your local authorities power to do *something* is de facto giving them the power to do *anything*.

  2. “We’re using technology, and that’s what we do in America, we use technology to solve really complicated problems,” says Craig Weiss, president and CEO of NJOY.

    They’re also supportive of efforts to ban all but tobacco flavors in e-liquid because that will most certainly give Njoy a marketplace advantage.

  3. Here is a link to the Drexel University study she cites in the article.

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/

    Here is the money quote (one of many that state essentially the same thing):

    Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern or call for remedial action.

    Emphasis mine.

    1. …”the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity.”…

      Pretty sure this is true of 2nd-hand-smoke, too.
      I smoked for 40+ years until I quit some years back; anything you can dose yourself with 20 times a day for 40 years and still be upright isn’t a very toxic substance.

      1. anything you can dose yourself with 20 times a day for 40 years and still be upright isn’t a very toxic substance.

        It’s not that the compiunds that make up cigarette smoke aren’t toxic, it’s just that the levels to which they’re toxic are infinitesimally small in a normal given dose (a cigarette). Were you to combine all of the toxins in a full pack, or perhaps even just a few cigarettes, in to one, you’d likely croak on the spot.

        Would you say that arsenic isn’t toxic if I only gave you half the dose necessary to kill you?

        1. “Would you say that arsenic isn’t toxic if I only gave you half the dose necessary to kill you?”

          No, but I would say if I dosed myself with it twenty times a day for forty years, it wasn’t very toxic.

  4. OT, just for the hell of it.
    Woman who makes a living showing off her ass and other parts gets sniffy when the public calls her fat:

    “Chrissy Teigen slams weight critics”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydi…..t-critics/

    Don’t like people commenting on your appearance? Don’t make a living off it.

    1. Considering that thanks to this story I am not learning about Chrissy Teigen for the first time, maybe this is some kind of marketing move? Spark a debate and then wait for the money to roll in?

      Not saying that was her plan…

      1. am *now* learning about…

      2. “Considering that thanks to this story I am not learning about Chrissy Teigen for the first time, maybe this is some kind of marketing move?”

        Hmmm. I’d never heard of her before either, but a lot of celebs fly right under my radar. But maybe…

    2. Don’t like people commenting on your appearance? Don’t make a living off it Don’t read anonymous comments from internet posters.

      It’s 2014. Seriously.

      1. She is as wise as she is beautiful.

    3. 9/10.

      That said, are you really arguing with random internet people?

      Her real response should have been: Who’s paying money to look at YOU, motherfucker?

  5. It’s neat, but until I can build myself a replica Zorg ZF1 prop I’m not all that excited about 3D printing*.

    *the above statement has not been evaluated by the Federal Posting Authority to conform to the parameters of this topic.

  6. “Either we run off the more conservative/libertarian elements of atheism or we bring in a younger, more female, more racially diverse crowd. At a certain point, a choice has to be made. When atheism was comfortable being just a bunch of older white men, setting aside political differences regarding the treatment of everyone else in this country was easy to do. But now that the choice has been laid out, that it is a choice is undeniable.

    “…When it comes to recruiting people to your cause, there’s a useful saying: “Go hunting where the ducks are.” And embracing social justice is how to do it….

    “I don’t have the numbers, but in my experience, the “I’m not an atheist, but I don’t believe in God” crowd is far more likely to be composed of women and people of color, in no small part because “atheist” conjures up an image?libertarian douchenozzle, to be blunt?that they don’t identify at all with. Moreover, I think if you can get to these folks, you’ll have lifelong loyalty from them that you won’t get from the young white misogynist crowd that I truly do believe will mostly end up drifting into Christianity as they get older. But the first step really has to be showing an unwillingness to put up with sexist and racist shenanigans. The second step is making social justice a priority and not an afterthought.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…..ducks-are/

    1. “…if there was a more clear-cut moral purpose to atheism that was visible to outsiders, I feel that would go a long way towards attracting previously uninterested people from more diverse backgrounds. The easiest way to demonstrate that clear moral purpose is to start taking up social justice issues, particularly ones where god botherers tend to make up the majority of the opposition. Yes, these are “controversial” issues like abortion and social welfare.”

      1. The real problem with atheist groups is that there’s not enough *meat* in atheism itself to constantly wank over.

        I mean, its basic (and really, only) precept is – there are no gods.

        Not much to discuss there.

        Other than that there’s the need to ensure that is room in the public space to safely adhere to that philosophy, there’s not much to discuss.

        The rest is just the human need to hand-wring and talk, and talk, and fucking talk, at great length, whether you want them to or not.

        So they drum up ‘problems’ and reasons why *they* should be the ones with the solutions to those ‘problems’.

        Fething wankers man.

        1. There’s a lot of meat on the bone when it comes to tearing down theology.

          Until you’re twenty-something reading Sam Harris and realize you’ve read all this shit on message boards for years, and there’s just nothing worth retreading.

          1. Bingo. I left an atheist forum years ago after it turned into a prog wank fest. They even did their best to run off all the libertarian atheists (there were 3 of us at the time).

            1. A lot of people seem to’ve come to their atheism in reaction to social conservatism, or their childhood, or Bush, or whatever. Which is fine, it makes this particular belief no more or less absurd than inheriting your parents’ religion. But secularism began to acculturate all sorts of progressive ideals, and began to see government as more hilt than blade. Now they’re swinging it at anything within reach.

              1. These comments seem to be about the proper way to build an atheist church?

                Not sure if they understand the purpose of not believing, vice believing something that, what ever it is, definitely is not GOD.

            2. “They even did their best to run off all the libertarian atheists..”

              That is because it was about proggyism, not atheism. You were the enemy.

          2. That’s kinda the point.

            You realize that physical evidence doesn’t support religious doctrine – for a *rational* person (which we atheists like to think we are) this would be enough. Doesn’t agree with the evidence? Bin it, next!

            But that’s not enough for normal person who needs a *team* to belong to.

            Atheism isn’t a team, its just where you are when you aren’t on any team – that’s it, nothing else.

            1. “But that’s not enough for normal person who needs a *team* to belong to.”

              Yep. This.

      2. god botherers tend to make up the majority of the opposition

        To welfare spending? Last I checked the only people opposed to all welfare spending were libertarians, who are obviously all white male atheists. As you just said earlier in your, ehm, “thoughts”.

      3. When it comes to recruiting people to your cause

        Moreover, I think if you can get to these folks,

        Um…

        Why would anyone feel the need to recruit atheists? I don’t get it.

        1. Because, power, man.

          And the vast majority of humanity is not satisfied with simply being right (or at least thinking they are) – they *demand* that others acknowledge their rightness by joining the ‘right’ group.

          The are two types of people in this world – ‘your kind’ and ‘immoral scum who don’t believe what you believe’.

          1. This. I lost interest in the movement, such as it is, when I realized I don’t give a flip whether John Johnson believes in God, or skeptical rationality, or owlbeasts from the far side of the moon beaming telepathic overtures of goodwill toward all the beings of the cosmos. But the movement very much cares.

            1. owlbeasts from the far side of the moon beaming telepathic overtures of goodwill toward all the beings of the cosmos

              I think I just found religion.

          2. Because, power, man.

            And the vast majority of humanity is not satisfied with simply being right (or at least thinking they are) – they *demand* that others acknowledge their rightness by joining the ‘right’ group.

            And the libertarians are the douche nozzles?

    2. Sadly, this is not news. Mainstream atheist movements have been borderline (at-best) SJW enclaves for over a decade.

      It was depressing, reading my subscription to ‘Free Inquiry’ in the late 90’s, how many articles were on how government needs to address this or that ‘problem’.

      1. SJW?

        1. Social Justice Warrior.

          1. Thank you!

        2. Social Justice Warrior.

      2. “It was depressing, reading my subscription to ‘Free Inquiry’ in the late 90’s, how many articles were on how government needs to address this or that ‘problem’.”{

        It was also humorous as Kurtz ranted about ‘corporate ownership of media!’ as his rag went from mimeographed pulp ‘journal’ to perfect-bound, glossy, four-color.

      3. It was depressing, reading my subscription to ‘Free Inquiry’ in the late 90’s, how many articles were on how government needs to address this or that ‘problem’.

        Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

          1. An old one. Read it in National Review years ago.

            Actually, I’d argue that all Iron Laws are old. That’s why they’re Iron Laws. Ever read the Gods of the Copybook Headings?

            1. There is nothing new under the sun-

              paraphrased from Ecclesiastes 1:9

              I really must give to credit to my religious upbringing for encouraging me to read the Bible.

            2. There is nothing new under the sun-

              paraphrased from Ecclesiastes 1:9

              I really must give to credit to my religious upbringing for encouraging me to read the Bible.

    3. I continue listening to SGU, but only because I’m convinced Novella’s tamping down on Watson’s feminist departures. They’re bad enough insisting that feds should force parents to vaccinate teh chillerns, or banish herbal supplements from the racks of Eckerd and Walgreens pharmacopeial offerings because the FDA hasn’t officiated their use in treating hypochondria.

      But really, the teapot tempest with Dawkins steamrolling Watson was the best bit of internal drama the atheism+ movement has produced. Everything else is nauseating argumentative SJW bullshit.

      1. “Dawkins steamrolling Watson”

        Like at 2:15?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dOx510kyOs

        1. what is this I don’t even

    4. Evangelical atheism has got to be one of the dumbest, most contradictory concepts one can think of.

      And since when is the stereotypical atheist libertarian or conservative?

    5. They are not recruiting atheists, they are recruiting progressives. Proggies are collectivists, so it is no wonder they talk about atheism as if it were a religion.

      Morans.

  7. Greg Conley: It looks like smoking, so ban it.

    1. This is it in a nutshell, just like it is with guns. If it looks icky or scary, no one should be able to do it. People need to learn to MYOFB.

    2. This is because they are animists. The cigarette’s shape and look and method of action (inhalation) has become a supernatural token for them. E-cigs that resemble regular smokes are therefore bad because these mongoloids cannot discern between things that look like the supernatural tokens that they think are evil. Gun banners are the same way; the more a gun looks “tactical”, the more evil it is to them, and that is the basis for all “assault weapon” bans.

      They really are this pathetically simplistic and stupid. And they will continue to do this because they’re so fucking stupid.

      1. No, they think their wards, which is everybody subjected to their restrictions, are so stupid we can’t distinguish between vaporizers and cigarettes. Vaping apes smoking, and our myopic, lizard brains can’t possibly tell whether we’re using the healthier alternative. And therefore both should be banned.

  8. My downstairs neighbors moved out today. They said they could smell smoke from the next apartment and it made them sick because secondhand smoke, blahblahblah. There’s a no smoking rule in the apartments, but the landlord did nothing. I smelled smoke in my apartment once, but I figure that was because someone smoked near an air vent and it got to me.

    I don’t like the smell of smoke, but I know secondhand smoke is mostly harmless.

    Penn & Teller had a good show about it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUIB4k9vgIg

  9. Huh: Salon publishes complimentary article about Ayn Rand written by a black, gay Jamaican man

    Ayn Rand, I submitted, was the penultimate scapegoat of our age who was routinely hated for her stylized creation of a wondrous universe in an age where too many people were polluting it with their unbridled vulgarity and mindless narcissism.

    In one sense, she was the quintessential American novelist and thinker. She advocated self-reliance, rugged individualism, limited government, American optimism and benevolence and the can-do-attitude that is the unprecedented hallmark of American exceptionality. On the other hand ? and this is part of why she is resented by many so-called progressives and conservatives alike ? her philosophical sensibilities are truly outside the mainstream of Anglo-American analytic philosophy.

    At heart, she represented an aristocracy of the soul and of the mind, a perceived elitism by some; however, if that catchphrase has any conceptual resonance ? it was an elitism to which all were invited provided they were willing to do the consistent thinking that will always be required of anyone who wishes to live as a human being.

    1. As an academic philosopher of almost two decades and the author of books in philosophy that have little to do with Rand’s philosophy, what surprises me most about Rand’s system is how startlingly original it is against the backdrop of Western philosophy. This intellectual insurgent was deeply insightful and perceptive. Contemporary academics mired largely within their own cults of irrelevancy are resentful and tormented by her popularity.

      When my student asked me why I truly admired Ayn Rand I said that that her paean hymn to the glory and sacredness of the human spirit along with the emphasis she placed on the absolutism of reason and the celebration of the best within the individual was paramount. These were both aesthetic and philosophical pleasures worth contemplating as ends in themselves. She also offered, I told him, a systematic way of living a rational life in an irrational world.

      When you are the beneficiary of a philosophical legacy there can be no single metric by which you judge its efficacy save two: Its correspondence to an objective reality; and the sense in which it provides emotional and philosophical fuel for continuing to live in a world that often seems to be imploding and collapsing on itself.

      Read the comments. It’s a hilarious case of cognitive dissonance.

    2. I will not read the comments. I will not read the comments. I will not read the comments.

      1. I mean it, this guy is seriously awesome. He’s doing a brutal take down of progressive ideology:

        A longtime friend, an African-American man, asked me if after having lived for almost 30 years in America if I had not grown weary of fighting racism. I was both surprised by the question and also compassionately understanding. He had grown up in the Deep South and had, indisputably, experienced both state-sanctioned and private racism. I placed my hand over his and said gently:

        “I have never ever in my life sought to actively fight racism. I have simply adduced myself as evidence of its absolute stupidity and irrationality.”

        He asked me what I meant and I immediately gave him the answer I thought Ayn Rand would have given him. Racism, I explained, is a form of psychosis ? a break with reality. To judge and appraise someone solely on the basis of arbitrary and nonmoral attributes such as skin pigmentation and so-called racial identity is not only irrational and nonsensical it is evil. You never grant metaphysical importance to evil or the irrational because they are impotent. Period. Rand, I explained to him, had discounted the metaphysical value of that which could only destroy but never create.

        1. continued:

          He was not impressed. “Don’t you want the state to make it so that you would never have to even deal with racists?”

          “No! Most certainly not,” I retorted, and felt deep anguish at the look of pain on his face.

          “Short of a bloated totalitarian state in which I would rather die than live ? this is impossible. The state cannot police tastes and attitudes. I want the state to protect my bodily integrity which is an absolute individual right I hold as does every other human being. I do not want any racist to inflict physical harm on me and the state’s job is to ensure that. But what the racist thinks privately of me is none of my business, and since his thoughts are so vile and irrational, to give them any deep significance would be to admit that he and what he thinks really matter to me in a way that, deep down inside, I can’t admit to. I cannot, and no person of self-esteem could. The state can and should simply keep out of my way because so much damage has been done to racial minorities by the state in the history of the United States on such a massive scale that it makes private racism seem like kindergarten play.”

          And this was published by SALON.

          1. And this was published by SALON.

            They probably didn’t understand it when they read the draft of the piece. It’s very complicated and nuanced. They’re not used to stuff like that.

          2. Holy shit, this guy is awesome.

            “I have never ever in my life sought to actively fight racism. I have simply adduced myself as evidence of its absolute stupidity and irrationality.”

            Fantastic.

          3. This is great.

            1. What’s great about this? The man’s clearly suffering from false consciousness. He seems to think that just because he hasn’t allowed the pervasive racism of American political culture to shackle his spirit that he’s free from it. Obviously nobody told him that he’s a victim.

          4. Glad to see that, as time passes, Salon continues to expose itself for the click-whoring operation that it is. Their progressive paeans are just a means to an end.

            Now click the damn link!

          5. *clap, clap, clap*

          6. her paean hymn to the glory and sacredness of the human spirit along with the emphasis she placed on the absolutism of reason and the celebration of the best within the individual was paramount. These were both aesthetic and philosophical pleasures worth contemplating as ends in themselves.

            This is EXACTLY why I like Ayn Rand.

      2. I read the comments.

        Why did I read the comments?

        1. Why did I read the comments?

          A significant dedication to the quest to discover Peak Derp?

    3. I’d also like to point out this is the best written article on Salon since Greenwald left.

      As an academic philosopher of almost two decades and the author of books in philosophy that have little to do with Rand’s philosophy, what surprises me most about Rand’s system is how startlingly original it is against the backdrop of Western philosophy. This intellectual insurgent was deeply insightful and perceptive. Contemporary academics mired largely within their own cults of irrelevancy are resentful and tormented by her popularity.

      This paragraph alone shows superior writing to just about anything else Salon publishes nowadays.

      1. I’m still flabbergasted as to how this made it on Salon. I’m checking to see if it’s a sign of the end times.

        1. As stated above, they are a click whore site. They knew they could troll their readers with this piece, and they did so.

          1. Yeah. That or their editors are so lazy they just assumed this rather long piece ended with “and yeah, then I grew up and embraced progressivism. LOL, libertarianism and Ayn Rand is for children!”

            You know, like all those other articles about people who were Objectivists while in college and then left it for safety of the Democratic Party.

    4. Look at that open-collared shirt, upper pectorals exposed, his hair shorn away. He’s pure douchebro culture, whether or not he identifies as Jamaican or gay. He’s perpetrating reverse-cultural appropriation, cultural reappropriation, by using his social justice bona fides as a double-strength minority to advance the ideology of old white men (embodied in the works of Ayn Rand).

      THIS IS PROBLEMATIC.

      1. Look at that open-collared shirt, upper pectorals exposed, his hair shorn away.

        OK… NOW I’m going to click.

  10. You should have listened to Judge Napolitano, fools!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNcXHKAuBPw

    A less impressive clip:

    http://www.complex.com/pop-cul…..m-festival

  11. I once asked some progs to describe the ideal society. I said that I thought the US was pretty good. The only changes I’d make would be to get rid of the income tax, the war on drugs, while bringing back the gold standard.

    They tore into me for my lack of imagination, because obviously there were so many other ways to improve social justice.

    1. Well, if we’re posting weird music videos. . .

      We are amplified!

      Turn up your speakers – the sound is kinda low.

  12. “Sabotage” – music by Beastie Boys, creepy music video by Russians

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9khm9vwlThI

    1. Be careful about breaking the speed limit while listening to that second one:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkkXHjQSyEI

      1. I’ve always loved you.

  13. I believe that trolling should operate on democratic principles.

    So which story do you want:

    A preview of tomorrow’s first-of-its-kind canonization ceremony for Popes John XXIII and John Paul II?

    OR

    The Florida man who caught and ate an 805 lb shark?

    1. The 805 lbs shark, obviously.

      Florida Man needs his own full-length feature film.

    2. I’m not sure. Maybe go ask Sevo.

      1. “Maybe go ask Sevo.”

        The shark that ate the popes and didn’t get the record. That one.

    3. Oh, who am I kidding?

      (video included)

      http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.1763788

      1. Michael Dwyer

        5 days ago

        What a gerk, real men don’t have to kill things

        I don’t know which he should hand in first: his Man Card, or his Irish Card.

        Reuben Avery

        5 days ago

        disgusting. hope he and his friends got mercury poisoning

        This must be some of that famous liberal empathy I keep hearing about.

        1. “disgusting. hope he and his friends got mercury poisoning”

          Are popes full of mercury?

        2. What a gerk, real men don’t have to kill things

          Hahahaha the seething bitchboy rage in that one is fun.

  14. Penguins.
    Beat.
    Bob Rovsky.

  15. Orcas called before world court, ’cause cute whales!

    “Orcas attack gray whales in Monterey Bay”
    […]
    “Nature’s truth and tragedy unfolded in a dramatic scene on Monterey Bay last week”…
    http://blog.sfgate.com/stienst…..22796101=0

    So I’m looking for the animal-rights folks to tell us who gets to sue whom in a civil action.

    1. Orcas are black, so it isn’t a hate crime. The gray whales need to check their privilege and stop gentrifying the orcas’ Monterrey Bay neighborhood.

      1. “Orcas are black, so it isn’t a hate crime. The gray whales need to check their privilege and stop gentrifying the orcas’ Monterrey Bay neighborhood.”

        I LOVE it!
        Can we presume a pay gap? How about the Orcas can no longer afford to live in the ‘hood?
        If we can work “climate change” into it, we could get a sizable grant. Alternatively, if we can’t, maybe Penguin will publish the book and Krugy will give it a good review!

        1. That’s because of gentrification driving the black out.

          1. Or – even better – its because of climate change.

            1. Agammamon,
              Congratulations! Your application has been accepted.
              But we’d like you to add the words “climate change” in the areas so indicated.
              Thank you for your cooperation, please see the attached forms to apply for assistants in your research.
              And welcome!

    2. All the while, the orcas put on a show where they breached, tail slapped. “It was like they were celebrating their victory,” Selby said. Four big humpbacks showed up to see what was going on, Selby said, and were then harassed by the orcas. In the past few days, Lorenz reported another attack, where the orcas dragged a carcass of a baby whale around for hours, and then when a sea lion showed up to see what was going on, it got nailed, too.

      Those *bastards*!

  16. Oh No

    Workonomics

    Presented by
    A special Upworthy series about work and the economy, made possible by the AFL-CIO.

    1. I prefer what Mike Rowe has to say about work.

    2. Just looking at those headlines makes me feel a little sick. It’s Saturday, can’t we post happy things?

        1. Much cuter when you turn down the awful music. But AWWWW, thank you!

            1. What a pussy.

        2. That puppy might be playing but that rabbit is sure as shit not.

          1. Because you can’t deny your true nature.

      1. How about a puppy update? I pick her up on the 21st.

        1. Adorable.

    3. Jesus fucking Christ.

      I’m pretty sure Stalinist propaganda is more objective than that.

      1. Remember: Any corporate money being spent on a study means that study is pure propaganda, but when the AFL-CIO pays a union hack to talk about how we should give infinity dollars to unions, that’s just common sense economics.

      2. The bit about roads and schools is correct though. We should fire every bureaucrat in the employ of the government, and spend the savings on new roads and schools.

        I mean, it’s not the worst thing to spend money on. The roads in particular need work. I want an Intercontinental Thruway damn it.

        1. I want an Intercontinental Thruway damn it.

          ZOMG!!! NAFTA AMERO AMERICAN UNION!!!!!!!!

        2. If progressives started advocating that we fire 80% of school administrators and invest the savings in road repair, I would be right there with them.

          I don’t think that’s what this stooge was advocating.

      3. So you think that is obnoxious lefty agitprop? Try this:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noRg1i-0dG8

        1. ^ Wasn’t that one put out by a teacher’s union? You want to know why America is screwed up, just consider the total lack of basic intelligence necessary to make that video. Then consider that those people are teaching the children.

      4. So you think that is obnoxious lefty agitprop? Try this:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noRg1i-0dG8

        1. You could have mentioned that asshole Asner before I clicked.

      5. How come all those people (even the rich and corporate guys) are missing arms?

        1. The revolution was far more brutal than anyone expected.

      6. I did not see a date on that. What, he didn’t get the memo? Obumbles already tried ‘pay your fair share’ and ‘shovel ready jobs’.

  17. This interview between Glenn Reynolds and Mia Love is itself not that interesting. She does mention her favorite economist is Bastiat, which is kind of cool.

    I call your attention to this video for the hilarious racism from both the left and right which occur in the comments.

    allen wood2 months ago

    she married a white man , had biracial kids, even turned her back on her own race – But Utah reminded her who she REALLY was by not electing her to Congress?

    LOL that fucking race traitor should have stayed with her own kind instead of betraying the noble black race!

    DD8264 months ago

    I don’t vote for minorities anymore, for two reasons. First, they always seem to go with their race, when there is an issue that puts their race’s interests against another. Second, why does it almost always take another minority to replace the current one, or you are considered a racist??

    “Why do people consider me a racist just because I flat out refuse to vote for any minorities?”

    1. It’s interesting, because neither of those people you quoted would probably admit to being racist in a million years. The first one reeks of moral indignation, like they’re on a lofty moral plane looking down on those piddly little racist creatures. The second guy has rationalized his racist litmus test without acknowledging the fact that using race as a litmus test is the definition of racism, regardless of the argument supporting it.

      It begs the question, do any racists admit to being racist?

    1. Evidently fifteen minutes & twenty-seven seconds is how long it takes me to get bored of stupid dog videos.

      Not sure if I should be ashamed that I watched that long or not.

      1. The last five minutes are actually the best.

        No, you should not be ashamed. My girlfriend “forced” me to watch the whole thing last night.

      2. Please don’t put clothes on dogs.

        1. “Please don’t put clothes on dogs.”

          My dogs would disagree with you. They wear these on occasion:

          http://www.cabelas.com/product…..732701.uts

          http://shop.prolitecustom.com/…..Kevlar.htm

      3. You can always do what I do in these situations – watch videos of cats (and dogs!) chasing laser pointers.

  18. For most billionaires, the greatest fear in getting married is what the divorce might cost. Not so Bernie Ecclestone. Official court papers show the Formula One tycoon is – as a result of his split from his second wife Slavica – perhaps the world’s best kept man.
    Documents show that since his divorce in 2009 he has received half a billion dollars (?300m) from his ex-wife’s trust fund. In a highly unusual divorce settlement, rather than Mr Ecclestone paying Slavica Ecclestone a good chunk of his fortune, she appears to be paying him at the rate of $100m (?60m) a year.

  19. I just saw a video of a performance artist shooting ink filled eggs out of her vagina onto a canvas.

    After much soul searching, I decided to save all of your sanity and not post it.

    1. Oh come on I want to see that.

      1. never mind found it

          1. So is artistry totally subservient to shock value, or does this demonstrate how valueless shock is?

            There’s nothing remarkable here. It’s a woman, freezing in the cold, who chooses to drop paint onto a canvas using kegel muscles rather than her hands. But the paint isn’t remarkable, the canvas is just canvas, and there’s nothing in the tableau but maybe sympathetic chills. There’s nothing deliberately expressive in this.

            1. You looked at it, didn’t you? You wouldn’t have looked at her work if she’d just done it with her hands, would you?

      2. Your terrifying wish is my command.

        It’s blurred out, but still NSFW.

        I’ll never sleep soundly again.

        1. you think you’re the only one who reads Ace?

          1. I’m personally just surprised you found it so fast.

            1. It’s the overnight thread.

              Also from that post.

              http://news.distractify.com/cu…..-and-life/

              Paleo onion rings!

    2. please refrain from posting this.

      1. Once I mentioned it, you should have known what was coming.

        1. I still ain’t gonna look/

    3. Was that a condition of your parole? For raping farm animals?

    4. Meh. Most of the work was gravity. Back in Bangkok, I saw a girl shoot darts fast enough to break balloons, and she was in a reclining position, so it was all muscle work. During the same “cabaret” show, I witnessed a dwarf have his way with a woman while on a motorcycle.

      1. Back in Bangkok, I saw a girl shoot darts fast enough to break balloons, and she was in a reclining position, so it was all muscle work.

        I really need to go to Bangkok

        1. If you ever do, shoot me an email.

          1. You have detailed files, huh?

    1. Why can’t people invent more things, like with this?

      1. As opposed to the bad kind of inventions that blow people up?

        1. I’m Ron Burgundy?

  20. Rode my bike to the local Wal-Mart grocery store to pick up a few items. There aren’t any bike racks in front of it so I (possibly illegally) locked my bike to a USPS mailbox.

    Lysander Spooner for LYF.

  21. My roomates got arrested at NASCAR. Fucking idiots.

    1. lol doing what

      1. Well apparently they were drunk, and wrestling playfully, and then the cops came, and instead of being sensible and telling them they were just messing around, one of them got all belligerent.

        1. “one of them got all belligerent.”
          So did some of the drivers.

  22. http://time.com/58356/this-is-…..ing-malls/

    Malls arose because the idiot Left allowed their idiot theories about violent criminals free reign, and American downtowns became barren as people flocked to a place that kept out the criminal element via proactive security employees.

    Now that the streets are relatively safe again, downtown is coming back, with of course a healthy chunk gone for good to online shopping.

  23. Best bit

    WFLA also notes that more supporters in Tampa Bay had planned a Sunday motorcycle ride to Sharkey’s house to “peacefully make the squatters uncomfortable,” if they hadn’t moved.

    1. Um…I’m pretty sure the sheriff can evict people, verbal agreement or not. It’s his property. He can kick out tenants at the owners request. If the ex-tenants have a grievance, they can sue for breach of contract.

      Had a similar issue with a contractor I fired coming into my unfinished house to collect his tools without me being there after he was specifically told to wait for me. Sheriff jumped his shit.

      Sheriff told me the landowner can always ask people to leave and if there was another agreement the other party must sue.

      1. Yeah it sounds like it’s just a shitty sheriff.

      2. I imagine the sheriff thought there was a landlord/tenant issue – landlords need a court order to evict a tenant, no matter how badly the tenant is behaving. But on the other hand there’s the question whether they’re tenants in the first place (their story was probably concocted to take advantage of the law), and needing a written agreement to sign away your rights to land.

        So if I *had* to guess, I suppose the cops were worried about being sued for evicting some poor tenants without due process, like landlords in melodramas who throw families onto the street.

        1. That is, I don’t know what Florida law says on this subject, but maybe the cops didn’t want to risk being on the wrong side of the law.

        2. I stand corrected.

          Wow. Just looked that up. Cannot believe a court order is required to evict a tenant.

          1. Doesn’t mean these guys *are* tenants, but they say they had an oral agreement. The rest is up to Florida law, and if the law is unclear the cops will worry about guessing wrong about their powers…

            1. I’m not sure why they didn’t just plant some dope at the house. The cops wouldn’t have any hesitation about charging in and making an arrest.

    2. I’m also thinking you are perfectly justified kicking in your own door and physically removing them.

  24. Just finished Django. Not bad. Typical QT.

  25. http://lawlemmings.tumblr.com/…..s-thinking

    lol law school bubble is at max.

  26. Bundy supporters: If shooting starts, it will be women who will get shot and the world will see.

    Trigger warning- prog derp

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP4drThyLeo

    1. That guy has a seriously punchable face.

      1. You think he’s bad? Try the regular host.

        Peter Schiff squashed him good:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of9-Y7jrzCc

  27. My alma mater creates a feminist biology course.

    “Feminist analysis in science has already revealed and challenged scientific errors resulting from gender bias on the part of scientists, including ways in which observer bias distorted our understanding of primate behavior,” Hyde adds. “Even on the cellular level, the biology of sex determination in the embryo was initially misunderstood because scientists assumed that the Y chromosome would have a leadership role.

    What.

    1. But remember, the left is against politicized science.

    2. They’re putting too much stock into the leadership role. It probably just calls a bunch of meetings and sends a ton of memos which annoy the other chromosomes who are trying to be productive.

    3. I hate Wisconsin communists

  28. Welp, we had a good run:

    Fifty-five percent (55%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should be allowed to review political ads and candidates’ campaign comments for their accuracy and punish those that it decides are making false statements about other candidates. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 31% oppose such government oversight. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.

    1. Sort of like how Iran conducts elections?

  29. Polar Bears Threatened?By Too Much Spring Ice

  30. These were both aesthetic and philosophical pleasures worth contemplating as ends in themselves

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.