E-cigarettes

Smoking and Vaping Keep Moving in Opposite Directions Among Teenagers

Where is this "gateway effect" we keep hearing about?

|

Results from the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey, released today by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show that smoking continued to decline among teenagers last year even as vaping continued to rise. Needless to say, that is not what you would expect to see if electronic cigarettes were a gateway to the conventional kind, as critics of those products keep claiming. Those critics include the CDC itself, which issued a press release emphasizing that "current e-cigarette use among middle and high school students tripled from 2013 to 2014." The CDC highlights that point in the headline and the first sentence of the press release. In the fourth paragraph, it mentions in passing that "cigarette use declined among high school students and remained unchanged for middle school students."

Among high school students, 9.2 percent reported past-month cigarette use in 2014, down from 12.7 percent in 2013. Among middle school students, 2.5 percent reported past-month cigarette use, down from 2.9 percent in 2013. (The latter drop was not statistically significant, which is why the CDC says the rate "remained unchanged.") Meanwhile, the share of high school students who reported using e-cigarettes in the previous month rose from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent last year; among middle school students, the rate rose from 1.1 percent to 3.9 percent.

CDC

Between 2011 and 2014, past-month cigarette use fell from 15.8 percent to 9.2 percent among high school students, while past-month e-cigarette use rose from 1.5 percent to 13.4 percent. The trends were similar for middle school students: Past-month cigarette use fell from 4.3 percent to 2.5 percent, while past-month e-cigarette use rose from 0.6 percent to 3.9 percent.

CDC Director Tom Frieden's spin on these numbers is predictably negative:

We want parents to know that nicotine is dangerous for kids at any age, whether it's an e-cigarette, hookah, cigarette or cigar. Adolescence is a critical time for brain development. Nicotine exposure at a young age may cause lasting harm to brain development, promote addiction, and lead to sustained tobacco use.

Never mind that there is no evidence in the CDC's own survey results to support the notion that vaping leads to smoking. If anything, these data suggest that e-cigarettes are displacing the real thing, which can only be a positive development from a "public health" perspective, give the enormous difference in the risks posed by the two kinds of niciotine delivery systems. The American Lung Association (ALA) suggests that the decline in smoking is "offset by the dramatic increase in use of e-cigarettes," which is scientifically absurd given the clear health advantages of vaping.

Part of the problem is that the CDC and the ALA, like the Food and Drug Administration, count e-cigarettes as "tobacco products," even though they contain no tobacco. These opponents of smoking also seem strangely oblivious to the lack of combustion. Yet these two factors make e-cigarettes dramatically different from smoked tobacco, to the point that it makes no sense to group them together. One might as well call nicotine gum and patches "tobacco products."

A BMJ study published yesterday casts further doubt on the concerns expressed by the CDC and the ALA. Looking at surveys of students in Wales, the researchers conclude that "e-cigarettes are unlikely to make a major direct contribution to adolescent nicotine addiction." E-cigarette use was more common among the Welsh students than conventional cigarette use (which is also true among American teenagers). But only 1.5 percent of 11-to-16-year-olds reported using e-cigarettes at least once a month, and almost all of those regular vapers were also smokers. That pattern suggests that while experimentation with e-cigarettes is increasingly common, regular use remains rare and concentrated among people who already smoke. 

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.

113 responses to “Smoking and Vaping Keep Moving in Opposite Directions Among Teenagers

  1. The vapist!

    1. So vapid!

      /sneers hipsterly

  2. “Vape,” or “vape vape?”

  3. They’re not e-cigarettes, they’re CYBERCIGARETTES! We all know “cyber” makes anything eleventy-hundred times worser and scarifyinger than the regular kind. Cybercigarettes! Boogah, boogah, boogah!

    1. The short time I vaped, I never met an Edward Snowden on the neural net. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

  4. Another great article Jacob.

    Yeah, more absurd made-up claims of harm. It hasn’t worked for marijuana use either, has it. The kids are far smarter than these politically motivated heath agencies and politicians give them credit for being.

    The best thing we’ve ever done is reduce the use and combustion of tobacco (and the myriad of chemicals that are put on it before it becomes a “cigarette” that are also inhaled). And we’ve done it by being honest without using jails and expulsions. It’s scary hearing that some schools are treating e-cigs like drug paraphernalia and punishing accordingly (zero-tolerance still in a lot of schools).

  5. Another great article Jacob.

    Yeah, more absurd made-up claims of harm. It hasn’t worked for marijuana use either, has it. The kids are far smarter than these politically motivated heath agencies and politicians give them credit for being.

    The best thing we’ve ever done is reduce the use and combustion of tobacco (and the myriad of chemicals that are put on it before it becomes a “cigarette” that are also inhaled). And we’ve done it by being honest without using jails and expulsions. It’s scary hearing that some schools are treating e-cigs like drug paraphernalia and punishing accordingly (zero-tolerance still in a lot of schools).

  6. Been vaping for 3 weeks now. I had one cigarette after I started and it made me sick. I’m going to go out on a limb and say vaping is a good form of smoking cessation.

    1. I couldn’t do it. Vaping made me long for and resume the real thing.

      1. Did you use one of those pencil sized things they sell at gas stations, or refillable tank sort?

        1. Pencil sized. Sucking the other side of a USB port reminded me I was sucking the other side of USB port.

          I have yet to explore the more elaborate options.

          1. There is absolutely no comparison between the quality products and the cheap ones. I thought I was saving money by buying a cheap one, and then gave up on it. At that point I should have upgraded. I spend thousands of dollars that I could have saved. The marginal cost is just so much lower.

            The high quality versions are vastly superior to cigarettes. I have a half full pack of smokes sitting by my mirror, and not even a twinge of temptation to touch them.

      2. Sometimes it requires incentives. I’m not that far away from needing a respirator or something so I had to make a change. Every cold turkey attempt just drove me bonkers and gums and patches just don’t work so a substitution was needed. Not sure if vaping is entirely lung-friendly but it’s not nearly as bad as smoke.

        1. I quit smoking cold turkey almost 15 years ago. To this day I still want to smoke. I am seriously considering vaping just to avoid finally breaking down and buying a pack of cigarettes. I miss the act of smoking I think. I live in Colorado and use a vape pen for weed. Since I actually use weed for the medical properties and not to get high I can’t smoke much.

          1. I’m sure I’ll miss smoking too. It was the punctuation of my life. All I need to do to remain smoke-free is remind myself how bad it was to run out of breath simply by standing up (it’s really that bad).

            1. It was the punctuation of my life.

              That is the most poetically true thing said here all day.

      3. That happened for me the first time I switched to vaping several years ago so I switched to vaping as a reduction (vape all day have some cigs at night/on weekends). Now I’ve switched to vaping for good for 5 months. We’ll see what happens when I go tubing this summer because I’m def buying some smokes for that (on principle and because can’t bring an ecig out on the water).

        Still light up a hookah on the weekends but that doesn’t really count.

  7. It is entirely possible, probably even likely that many of those vaping teens are just vaping PG and VG with 0% nic. At least those that had not smoked prior to vaping.

    Basically doing as a social thing.

    1. Basically doing as a social thing.

      So you’re saying they’re socialists? Once the nannying busybodies realize that, they’ll begin subsidizing vaping.

  8. We need a war on vaping! Oh wait, we already have one, never mind. So, I mean, we need a war on ‘something’, anything will do.

    1. And I mean, you know, gawd forbid we have a war on cancer, or aging related diseases or anything like that. No, it’s much more important that we stop people from doing things that they want to do, regardless of how harmless that might be.

      1. And I mean, you know, gawd forbid we have a war on cancer, or aging related diseases or anything like that.

        You’ve seen how these people handle the war on drugs and poverty. You want them to declare war on cancer? It would be an extinction level event.

  9. Is there actually any evidence that nicotine hurts brain development? If I had to guess its effect, it’d be that it promotes it.

    1. Is there actually any evidence that nicotine hurts brain development?

      From the “suggests” link:

      These disturbing findings show the results of the tobacco industry’s continued efforts to target youth, who are especially at risk from the effects of tobacco and nicotine. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that nicotine has a negative impact on adolescent brain development, and has been associated with lasting cognitive and behavioral impairments, including effects on working memory and attention.

      e-cigarette use tripled among teens in the past year. I think this is legitimate cause for concern.

      “While we have made some progress in reducing youth cigarette use, we still have close to half a million people dying from tobacco use each year,” Wimmer said. “We must redouble our efforts to eliminate youth use of all tobacco products, and end the tobacco epidemic once and for all ? and that begins with FDA having authority over all tobacco products.”

      “End the tobacco epidemic once and for all”. Amen brother.

      1. “While we have made some progress in reducing youth cigarette use, we still have close to half a million people dying from tobacco use each year,”

        Considering the time window that is required for someone to die from tobacco related illnesses (generally over 30 years of regular and pronounced use) and the recent development and wide distribution of ecigs, it stands to reason that plenty of people who began smoking in the 1970s are gonna die.

        One thing that continually irritates me where smoking stats are concerned is none ever bother delving into the amount any individual smoker is smoking. In the 80s, it was common for a person to go through 2-3 packs a day. These days, you have to be a Koch brother to afford a habit of that magnitude in many places. The lowest tax jurisdictions you can get a pack around $6. Which means that a 2-pack-a-day habit requires $4,500 annually devoted to it.

        1. Not only that, but you’ll have to explain to me why I should fucking care if someone willingly chooses to smoke and dies earlier than they otherwise would.

          It’s a subjective value judgment to claim this is a bad thing. If someone’s life is made happier or more tolerable by smoking, it’s not necessarily bad if they lose a few years on the back end to do something they enjoy. People do plenty of things that are bad for them. I’d probably live a few years longer if I’d stop drinking, but a life without beer and cocktails is not worth living.

          Oh, progressive, will you save me from myself?

          1. I also smoke a few cigarettes periodically when I’m drunk. That likely won’t kill me because I smoke them so sporadically – maybe one cigarettes a week if you average it out. Regardless, it’s none of the state’s business.

          2. Not only that, but you’ll have to explain to me why I should fucking care if someone willingly chooses to smoke and dies earlier than they otherwise would.

            That’s fine, but we’re talking about the tobacco companies intentionally targeting children. The children become addicted. I don’t think they are willing choosing.

            From the same link:

            These disturbing findings show the results of the tobacco industry’s continued efforts to target youth, who are especially at risk from the effects of tobacco and nicotine.

            The tobacco industry, especially cigar, e-cigarettes and hookah manufacturers, continue to use candy and fruit flavors to appeal to kids.

            The tobacco companies are condemning these children to a life of continuous health problems and an early death. All in the name of greed. It is disgusting.

            1. Are the people who enjoy candy and fruit flavor only children? If not, that point has no value.

              That’s fine, but we’re talking about the tobacco companies intentionally targeting children. The children become addicted. I don’t think they are willing choosing.

              Really? You don’t think 16 year olds can make willing choices and choose to change when they’re 20? Do you think something magic happens when they’re 18 which changes things and makes rational decisions possible?

              1. Really? You don’t think 16 year olds can make willing choices and choose to change when they’re 20?

                Yes, their brains are still developing. They are becoming hardwired to need the drug. They can quit but it is much more difficult then if they had started smoking in their twenties.

            2. The tobacco industry, especially cigar, e-cigarettes and hookah manufacturers, continue to use candy and fruit flavors to appeal to kids.

              You are joking right? Because I’ve smoked hookah, cigars, and ecigs and I can tell you, especially with cigars, never have I once seen anyone under 18 lighting up a cigar. Those flavored cigars you talk about are blunt wraps. Hookah is primarily a cultural-centric practice, mostly among those of Middle Eastern descent. Why do you hate people of middle eastern descent? Are you an Islamophobe?* And Ecigs use flavoring, but feature absolutely no tobacco, so I dunno what you’re referring to them as the tobacco industry for.

              *I hate that term, but enjoy employing it ironically.

              1. And Ecigs use flavoring, but feature absolutely no tobacco, so I dunno what you’re referring to them as the tobacco industry for.

                It’s called an e-cigarette for a reason.

                1. And that reason has nothing to do with the tobacco industry.

                  It is not the government’s job to save kids from addiction. Fuck the children.

                  1. It is not the government’s job to save kids from addiction.

                    No, it is the parents’ job and the government is a means for the parents to accomplish that job.

                    1. it is the parents’ job

                      Correct.

                      the government is a means for the parents to accomplish that job.

                      Incorrect. Fuck off slaver.

                    2. Incorrect.

                      How is that incorrect?

                    3. Because the government doesn’t exist to make parenting easier. It has no responsibility to do so. “Helping me fix muh kids” is not a right.

                    4. “Helping me fix muh kids” is not a right.

                      I never said it was a right, just a means available. Parents don’t want their children buying alcohol or tobacco, so the government makes it illegal. Parents want their children educated, so the government provides a free public education. Their are a myriad of ways parents have utilized government in hopes of benefiting their children.

                    5. Because Article I Section 8 is pretty specific in what is referred to as enumerated powers. And moreso because the only proper role of govt is the protection of rights, not the nannying of the citizenry.

                2. Well, they’re actually called PVs (personal vaporizers). The reason they were initially called ecigarettes is because they were marketed as smoking cessation devices, and far more effective than anything produced by Big Pharma where that was concerned. They can employ nicotine, and for someone attempting to quit smoking, they’ll use the nicotine and decrease the level with time. But nicotine itself is a mild stimulant with no known toxicity or carcinogenic properties. Close to caffeine as far as that’s concerned (also addictive, mayhaps you wanna ban coffee?). Tobacco flavoring is sometimes used (and generally the choice of smokers trying to quit, at least initially). But flavoring itself doesn’t have any carcinogenic properties.

                  1. There is no combustion either. It is a liquid that, upon contact with a heating coil, evaporates and produces a vapor. The most common agent mixed with the nicotine and flavoring is proplyene glycol. It has a GRAS (generally recognize as safe) rating as a food stuff from the FDA and you can go ahead and take a look at your toothpaste tube and note it’s presence there. Now, I’ll readily admit that there have been limited long term studies on vaping. But you ask any smoker who gave up “analogs” for vaping and they’ll tell you the exact same thing I observed anecdotally: you do not feel it in your lungs the way you do with cigarettes. I’ve been known to still have actual cigs from time to time (typically when drinking and socializing) and I can tell you that anyone that quit smoking via vaping and then goes and has 2-3 cigarettes that night feels it the next day, a solid reminder that vaping is considerably less damaging than smoking. Additionally, when I first got into vaping in 2010 to quit smoking, I looked into every bit of research I could find. There was not a ton at the time. But there was a study of PG inhalation done by an Aussie in 1942 where he tested PG inhalation on rats. Found only one difference between the control group and the PG group: the PG group seemed less likely to contract simple illnesses.

                    1. They are a tobacco product because they are a nicotine delivery system and the FDA has regulatory authority over them.

                    2. They are a tobacco product because they are a nicotine delivery system and the FDA has regulatory authority over them.

                      “A bureaucrat says it is so therefore IT IS SO”.

                    3. If the govt says the sky is magenta, are you going to believe them or your lying eyes?

                      The USSC said in Korematsu that no one’s rights were violated by the mass internment of Japanese citizens, does that mean that you think it’s totally kosher to imprison an entire race of people solely on account of national origin?

                    4. does that mean that you think it’s totally kosher to imprison an entire race of people solely on account of national origin?

                      Why do you hate people of middle eastern descent? Are you an Islamophobe?

                      Why do you keep trying to paint me as a bigot? Is this an effective tactic even when the subject at hand is not related in anyway?

                      Let me give it a try while still staying on topic:

                      Why do you want children to die?

                    5. Why do you want children to die?

                      Perhaps I should ask you that question. Vaping provides an alternative to traditional smoking that is safer. (albeit your premise is idiotic, since no one who has developed cancer on account of smoking has been under the age of 18, as it requires decades of smoking before any increased mortality risk).

                      As far as the islamophobia charge, I even noted it was employed ironically. You are aware that Islam and teh Ghey are competing for the top of the SJW list of things that cannot be mocked right? I’m assuming you’re of the left generally given your quick penchant for BANHAMMERING that which you find uncouth. As for the Korematsu decision, I was merely extending your logic of taking what the state says ipso facto to its logical extensions.

                    6. They are a tobacco product because they are a nicotine delivery system

                      Is a bicycle a plane because they are a people delivery system?

                3. It’s called an e-cigarette for a reason.

                  to distinguish them from real cigarettes?

      2. Oh, and uhhhhh..

        “End the tobacco epidemic once and for all”. Amen brother.

        Fuck off slaver

      3. Football has a negative impact on adolescent brain development. Should we ban that too, big guy?

        1. DON’T GIVE HIM ANY IDEAS IRISH

          1. They’re way ahead of him on that, anyway.

      4. The ‘Surgeon General’ has no more value to me than any other modern-day ‘Ephor’, only empirical studies do. Here is a link with the adverse effects of nicotine-it’s bad stuff-and there’s nothing in there about brain development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..se_effects

        The “tobacco epidemic” is a fucking farce. There’s no such thing. TOBACCO IS NOT A DISEASE NOR IS IT CONTAGIOUS.

        1. Bad stuff indeed:

          From your fuckin’ link:

          Nicotine appears to have significant performance enhancing effects, particularly in fine motor skills, attention, and memory.

          1. Pure poison:

            … with research showing low dose nicotine patches being an effective treatment of major depressive disorder in non-smokers…

            …there is evidence that nicotine itself has the potential to prevent and treat Alzheimer’s disease

            1. All drugs are poisons and all poisons drugs in the right dose.

              Nicotine appears to have significant performance enhancing effects, particularly in fine motor skills, attention, and memory.

              Now that is interesting. Hell I could use some of that now that I’m getting old. However, it’s still bad stuff: Nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes tumor growth and atherosclerosis.

  10. Does the CDC ever tell us not to worry?

    1. That doesn’t bring in the money.

      The worst thing for the powers that be (a vague term, I know, but “they” tend to change depending on who you’re talking to) would be for Americans to lose the siege mentality we’ve all had for the past 30-40 years.

    2. Ebola, and they were right.

  11. Morty! It’s these kids and this vadering! That’s what’s hurting the US of A! Morty, are you listening to me? Morty!

    1. “Vadering”. Excellent typo.

  12. OT: The Seventh Day Adventists and the Becket Fund filed a brief in the Supreme Court in the SSM case. They take no sides on the “right” of same-sex couples to marry – presumably, they see that the fix is already in, and that the Court will inaugurate an era of same-sex marriage.

    What the brief *does* say is that if the Court is to establish a same-sex marriage regime, it should at least try not to crush religious liberty in the process.

    As the brief puts it: “According legal recognition to same-sex marriage without preserving space for robust religious liberty protections will result in wide-ranging church-state conflict.”

    Again, “Leading legal scholars on both sides of the marriage debate recognize the conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty and support legislative accomodations.”

    Wow, why didn’t someone mention this before? This came totally out of the blue!

    http://www.adventistreview.org…../brief.pdf

    1. “These consensus positions reinforce the common-sense conclusion that state legislators act rationally when they choose to reject giving legal recognition to same-sex marriage without conscience protections. And they counsel judicial restraint in the cases before the Court.”

    2. Indeed, why didn’t they do this before? That is, treat SSM as separate from the ADA legislation they never got riled up about before?

      1. Could you explain who this “they” is?

        1. And what’s ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act?

          1. Anti-discrimination…something that begins with A…Act?

            1. ENDA?

              (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?

        2. The 7 Day A’s but it can be applied to SnoConez and those obstinate over SSM in general.

          1. I’m still not sure what ADA means.

            1. I meant the stupid anti-discrimination laws that force bakers to bake cakes for people they don’t want to.

              1. OK, so far we are in accord, but in what sense are you blaming the SoCons?

                1. I blame them for not attacking these laws earlier and for only appearing to give a shit about them as a cover for their long-standing campaign to rob gay couples of their marriage rights.

                  1. The Becket Fund, as a religious-freedom group, criticized these laws as soon as they impacted the free exercise of religion.

                    The Seventh Day Adventists, as I understand, focus their attention generally on other matters than political battles, only turning to politics and the courts to defend their institutional interests. Pretty selfish, I know, but they’re hardly the only ones to do it.

      2. Could we stipulate that “they” (whoever “they” are) are evil hypocrites, and return to the question at hand: Is there some tension between SSM and religious freedom, and what should the Supreme Court do about this, if it truly intends to inaugurate an SSM regime throughout the country?

        1. Recall that some commenters (though, in fairness, not you) have said that libertarians are more reliable defenders of the freedoms of SoCons than the SoCons themselves.

          So are the libertarians going to come through and support the Adventist/Becket brief?

          1. Recall that some commenters (though, in fairness, not you) have said that libertarians are more reliable defenders of the freedoms of SoCons than the SoCons themselves.

            I haven’t said that but I will now.

            So are the libertarians going to come through and support the Adventist/Becket brief?

            Assuming you’ve provided an objective representation of it I know I will and I imagine my brethren will follow.

            1. The one part of the brief you may object to involves government contracts – they say religious groups with conscientious scruples against SSM should be as eligible for govt contracts as any other group.

              Apart from that, I don’t think there’s much you would disagree with in principle.

              1. I’ve downloaded the brief to read in full later but I did skim the intro.

                They admit in the first sentence that this brief doesn’t have anything to do with the case in front of the court. So I guess I wonder why it would be written in the first place. Seems like posturing and signaling to me.

                1. I doubt the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty would waste its precious time and resources in “posturing.” They focus on defending religious liberty in concrete cases – not just for Christians, they supported Muslim beardo’s right to facial hair – so if they’re putting effort into this brief, it’s because they hope it will have some effect, at least in avoiding having the Supremes trample all over the 1st Amendment in affirming a right to SSM.

                  1. That is posturing. It’s posturing for future court cases.

                    1. “That is posturing. It’s posturing for future court cases.”

                      Future court cases about religious freedom, which they will have an easier time winning if the Court responds to the concerns in their brief.

                      This answers your concern about “why [the brief] would be written in the first place.”

              2. Except, of course, the part where they don’t want the Supreme Court to characterize opposition to SSM as “irrational animus” in the constitutional sense.* If they’re going to establish a regime of state-recognized SSM, then the brief suggests they do it in a way which doesn’t characterize religious objectors as clueless bigots with no rights the majority is bound to respect.

                *From the “irrational animus” clause in the Constitution which was somehow left out of my copy.

                1. Irrational animus is retarded I’ll give them that, like I said I haven’t read it. It should be irrelevant to this case, or any case for that matter.

              3. they say religious groups with conscientious scruples against SSM should be as eligible for govt contracts as any other group.

                Better not interfere with the job the government is contracting them for.

        2. There is no tension between SSM and religious freedom. There is only tension between anti-discrimination legislation and religious freedom (though only as a subset of freedom of association in general, religion has nothing to do with it).

          1. “There is no tension between SSM and religious freedom.”

            That depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

            If by “is” you mean “ought not to be,” then of course from the libertarian perspective your position makes sense.

            But if you’re talking this planet as opposed to Planet Libertopia, then yes there is tension, and we’ve seen this in example after example.

            1. Fuck off, is means is. There IS no tension between SSM and religious freedom. Full stop. All those “examples” have nothing to do with the government recognizing SSM and everything to do with anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws that have been infringing on freedom of association for decades before SSM was even on the table.

              1. This. The supposed association between SSM and anti-discrimination lawsuits is a fictional construct invented by those opposed to SSM because teh gheyz ruining marriage. *cough *cough

                1. It goes hand in hand with the retarded “the government is forcing me to recognize gay marriages” argument. Nobody is forcing you to recognize jack shit. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize my dirty atheist marriage even though we are both baptized and confirmed Catholics but the government sure does.

                  1. The brief warns that the Supreme Court may threaten religious-liberty protections in existing laws – if their decision writes off all religious objectors as motivated by pure “animus.”

                    “Nobody is forcing you to recognize jack shit.”

                    So far we’ve had cases of T-shirt makers, wedding chapels, bakers, and photographers being required to recognize gay marriages. Reason actually covered these cases.

                    1. So far we’ve had cases of T-shirt makers, wedding chapels, bakers, and photographers being required to recognize gay marriages. Reason actually covered these cases.

                      No they weren’t they were forced to serve them (and nobody here thinks they should have been). Nobody forced them to recognize their validity.

                    2. Making a wedding cake, or providing wedding photographs, doesn’t recognize the validity of the wedding?

                    3. “nobody here thinks” they should have been”

                      Of course, but there’s a lot of fingers-in-ears denial of the link between the “I want cake” movement and the SSM movement.

                    4. Making a wedding cake, or providing wedding photographs, doesn’t recognize the validity of the wedding?

                      No it doesn’t. YOU are in control of your own mind. The government doesn’t not yet control the technology to force you to think a certain way. You do not need the government’s permission.

                    5. Ah, so I can force you to recite the Nicene Creed, and as long as you don’t assent in your mind, I’m not violating your religious freedom?

              2. Whenever state legislatures debate SSM bills, there’s also a debate on whether to grant broad or narrow protections of religious freedom. One side wants narrow protections limited basically to churches, while the other side wants to protect *all* conscientious objectors, even if they’re *gasp* operated for profit.

                The narrow-exemption side says that a broad exemption would be unfair to the LGBLTs by denying them recourse against discriminators. The broad-exemption side says that a narrow exemption would be unfair to conscientious Christian businesspeople.

                Neither side tried to punt by saying, “well, these issues are *totally unconnected!*” Apparently even state legislators can tell when things are related to each other.

                1. Whenever state legislatures debate SSM bills, there’s also a debate on whether to grant broad or narrow protections of religious freedom.

                  A complete and utter lie. Many states and local governments banned discrimination based on sexuality long before gay marriage was recognized.

                  New Mexico is a perfect example. There were florists there prosecuted for not serving a gay wedding that was NOT recognized by the state.

                  1. You really need to be disconnected from reality to ignore the links. The progs certainly are able to connect the dots…are you dumber than a prog?

                    “Every state legislative debate over gay marriage has addressed the question of whether religious objectors could be exempt in any way from recognizing same-sex unions. But in states where same-sex marriage became law through the courts, only one, Connecticut, followed up by enacting significant new exemptions. Massachusetts, Iowa and New Jersey have provided no opt-outs for gay marriage opponents.”

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..83756.html

                    1. Which supports my claim: “Whenever state legislatures debate SSM bills, there’s also a debate on whether to grant broad or narrow protections of religious freedom.”

                      So please point out the “lie.”

                    2. You are playing right into their hands. Gay marriage is a done deal, but there is still some small hope for freedom association (though only in this tiny limited sense). Dying on this retarded hill won’t gain you anything.

                    3. “Dying on this retarded hill won’t gain you anything.”

                      Two questions:

                      (a) What does that even mean?

                      and

                      (b) how have you supported your accusation that I lied?

                    4. You have repeatedly lied about anti-discrimination laws being passed alongside SSM laws.

                    5. “passed alongside?” Screw you, Horatio Goatblower, I said that you can’t fit a sheet of onionskin paper between the SSM movement and the “I want cake” movement.

                      And I said:

                      “Whenever state legislatures debate SSM bills, there’s also a debate on whether to grant broad or narrow protections of religious freedom.”

                      Which I noticed you said was a lie, but never produced any evidence to refute.

                    6. Well, I need to repose in the arms of Morpheus.* So I’ll just note that you have shown yourself dumber than the progs themselves in your accusations.

                      *How gay!

                2. It’s not a punt. They’re not directly connected. If SSM adoption can get us started on the road to ending the anti-discrimination laws then all the better.

  13. Has everyone already had a collective gut laugh over Gawker writers trying to unionize?

    Probably covered in the PM links already, still hilarious.

    1. Will this kill Gawker? (That is what I believe is commonly called “a consummation devoutly to be wished.”)

      1. “Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.”

  14. Here’s a great religion of peace story

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/…..index.html

    In a boat load of refugees from Libya fleeing to Italy, a bunch of Muslims threw overboard 12 Christians, killing them.

    Yes, I’m sure this is somehow the US’s (and the Jews) fault because we (mostly Europe though) helped overthrow Ghaddafi, somehow the Muslim refugees were so traumatized by this “imperialism” they had no choice than to murder Christians (who had no connection whatsoever to the US).

    Nope, can’t be that Islam is a murderous ideology…

  15. The puritans among us are not pleased.

  16. One thing: vaping does not cure nicotine addiction because it’s not designed to do so. It really exacerbates it. I can get way more nicotine into my body w/vaping than I ever could w/tobacco products (and I’ve used them all). It’s a way to stop the harmful effects of smoking while maintaining an addiction. It even costs less than tobacco over the long run. One can vary the nicotine content of the e-juice from 0% to 50% and more. I’m at around 50% right now. I can’t see how nicotine itself is harmful since it makes me feel more energetic and calmer at the same time. There is no way I’d go back to tobacco now since vaping packs a lot more punch and I can vape in a hospital elevator if I want to. Usually nobody even notices because I’m careful to use mint flavors, etc etc. I haven’t noticed any adverse physical effects yet, after a couple of years.

    I’d recommend not using the cheap gas-station vaporizers to start because they don’t really deliver the goods. You need a bigger battery and a more powerful vaporizer. Plus, you need to customize your liquid. It takes a while to get it right but it’s worth the trouble for health reasons and especially for the nicotine!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.