Banning Flavored Tobacco Products Doesn't Work—We Have the Trash To Prove It
Researchers examined garbage placed in public receptacles in Washington, D.C., and New York City and found that the locales’ bans on flavored tobacco products have unquestionably failed.

In recent years, Massachusetts, New York, California, and Washington, D.C., have all implemented bans on flavored tobacco products in an attempt to reduce smoking rates among younger populations. Despite these bans, flavored tobacco products are still easily accessible—and it's never been more apparent.
Walk into the nearest convenience store and you'll likely find an assortment of flavored tobacco products to choose from—strawberry banana, blue raspberry, spearmint, black cherry. Whether or not your city or state bans these products, they'll likely be fully stocked and at your disposal.
In 2021, the D.C. Council banned the sale of flavored tobacco products within a quarter-mile of middle schools and high schools. New York City took things a step further by banning the sale of flavored tobacco products throughout its five boroughs.
Yet, citywide bans on the sale and purchase of flavored tobacco products have utterly failed. Two new studies conducted by the market researcher WSPM Group show just how many tobacco products are being consumed and disposed of in Washington, D.C., and New York City. Researchers went through the trash in the two cities and found that over 99 percent of the vapes collected from the urban trash cans were flavored tobacco products, despite consumers in those cities being barred from legally purchasing those products.
Something similar happened when Massachusetts banned menthol cigarettes in 2019. Proponents of the ban argued that it would lower smoking rates among black adults, the primary consumers of menthol tobacco products. In reality, the prevalence of smoking among black adults increased after the ban was implemented, as did the sale of menthol cigarettes in surrounding states. Bay Staters were driving out-of-state to purchase menthol cigarettes in higher quantities to stockpile for their own use or to sell on the newly created black market. Smokers were undeniably worse off after their state government took away their right to choose and forced them into a black market.
And who supplies vendors with these illicit flavored vapes filling the shelves of corner stores across the nation? China, of course—though most consumers likely aren't aware of that. Of the 2,000 e-vapor products collected from the trash in Washington, D.C., and the surrounding cities of Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, and Silver Spring, 99.5 percent of the packaging and products were exported from China. When the nearest 7-Eleven carries a variety of flavored vapes, few will consider where they came from or imagine that they are illegally imported items. Last year, the FDA sent out notices to 22 retailers warning them of coming fines if they did not stop selling unauthorized e-cigarettes, but those banned products can still be seen on store shelves and in smokers' hands throughout the country.
Adults should be able to purchase whatever tobacco products they please—and the trash tells us they will do just that. Banning flavored tobacco products will never stop people from smoking—instead, lawmakers are once again causing unregulated and potentially dangerous black markets to rise up and meet the demand. It's time that policy makers discard the idea that they can control individuals' personal choices.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And yet many of those same consumers continue to vote for democrats.
Then Republicans just aren't competing well in the political market. They need to up their game. Offer what the customers want. Principles? They haven't got any anyway, they're politicians. Unless their principle is to stay in second place.
Free money forever?
Free money is a human right! At least for some humans with the correct demographics. All others pay cash (and taxes).
It's a damn shame that Democrats are the ones pushing for the bans. Of course you knew that.
Let me know if and when Trump specifically speaks against this type of regulation. I’ll give him 15 points for it, then he’d only be 985 points behind Chase Oliver.
Meanwhile, here’s a list of places with vaping bans. Not just flavored vaping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaping_bans_in_the_United_States
I don’t think Utah and Mississippi are controlled by Democrats.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-signs-executive-order-reduce-regulations-n714151
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/health/trump-vaping-ban.html
Advisers say the president pulled back from proposed restrictions intended to curb teenage vaping after he was warned of the political fallout among voters.
You know what? I'm pleased to be wrong here. Thank you for point that out.
I'll award Trump 30 points, despite the superfluous admission of incorrect motives. 970 points to go.
How many points does Oliver get for supporting increasing minimum wage with inflation?
Looked it up. Pretty bad. 50 points off.
Chase 950
Trump 30
OH NO! Chase Oliver isn't perfect! That settles it, time to vote for Trump, the guy who gave us $6 trillion in debt and hates Mexicans.
Honestly, I think the hating Mexicans is performative, his judgment of what his base wants. I feel like he’d have zero problem having drinks with some wealthy Mexican friends.
Not, of course, that it’s OK. But based on his past actions in regards to Iran, various Arab countries, and his rhetoric vs action on the “Muslim Ban”, it’s clear his bark is worse than his bite, maybe intentionally. A reverse Teddy Roosevelt strategy. I’m pretty sure he isn’t really going to bomb cartel-held regions in Mexico. Like 70% sure....
He doesn’t hate Mexicans you dolt.
"oRaNgE hiTLeR hAtEs mExiCaNs!!!!"
Because the only possible reason to oppose illegal immigration is hate, right Lying Jeffy?
Do you realize that saying he hates Mexicans because of his rhetoric about illegal immigrants comes off as ridiculously racist?
We get it, you're looking forward to one-state communism but the murders along the way make you feel icky so you're with Chase and the gooner squad of libertine left-libertarians until then.
Frankly, the religious socially conservative part of the Republican party doesn't mesh well with me either but they are more comfortable neighbors than the socialist/communist left.
Both parties play the 'for the kids' card when it comes to vaping, but we all know it's the legacy of Al Gore's crusade against tobacco companies. The vast amount of treasure they looted from those companies into federal and state coffers is the real reason.
One could also say that after they decided every Doctor in the U.S. works for the government it was decided to try and keep costs down by simply banning things that cost more healthcare dollars down the road. That's socialism for you though. If the decisions you make cost the government money in entitlements down the road, they'll simply curtail your ability to decide for yourself.
And of course this principle extends into everything the government touches. As more things become a 'right' expect more curtailing of people's freedom to do unapproved things because they have spread negative results onto everyone instead of just the people making the idiot decisions.
Targeting menthol cigarettes explicitly because the black community prefers to smoke that type of cigarette should have caused at least a few people to pause, but of course they didn't. That was at least one proximate cause for Eric Garner having a negative outcome with police, yet somehow no one suggested opening up the cigarette market after that incident.
I suppose it amuses me that the government passes law after law and then when something bad happens as a result they say they'll reduce enforcement, yet it never seems to occur to government to reduce regulations instead. It'll still be illegal, it's just that there won't be anyone to enforce their diktats. Hilarious, and also terrible since it amounts to selective enforcement. They won't hesitate to use those laws against you if they don't like you even if those statutes are basically unenforced in normal circumstances.
"it was decided to try and keep costs down by simply banning things that cost more healthcare dollars down the road."
But in case it's not clear it even does that. The accounting fails to take into account that
(a) dead people cost nothing in health care, and
(b) while treating people while they die of lung cancer or heart disease is expensive, preventing those things necessarily increases the numbers for other terminal conditions, since the total is absolutely fixed at 1.000 deaths/person. You would have to prove that those other ways to die are cheaper.
Since when is cutting costs a government priority?
I am not sure the urge to control people more once the related benefit is deemed a "right" is merely incidental. I will credit the more clever nanny-staters with the foresight to see how state provision and state control are closely couple--and highly desirable.
then he’d only be 985 points behind Chase Oliver.
Plugsalad deducts 85 points for orangemanbad and 900 for not masking and ignoring the 6 foot rule.
The fact he thinks Oliver would actually produce change and not pander to the leftist social activists is mind boggling. Chase makes clear what his priorities are.
I’m content to read the stated positions and priorities on his campaign website.
There are some issues where favoring freedom coincidentally aligns more with left social activists than with social conservatives, so be it.
I’d say the only genuinely tough call on his platform is early age gender change surgery. I generally oppose the state interfering in parental medical decisions but it’s hard not to view the surgery as a major mistake, even more so if the parents and doctor are listening to a child’s immature desires rather than looking at hard medical facts.
On the death penalty, meh. I don’t think it’s inherently unjust but I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary either. I could live with a ban.
The rest of it, full speed ahead.
You'd be better served by reading his comments outside of a curated setting as a campaign site. Some of his longer discussions show how out of depth he actually is regarding actual policy.
But hey, if you are for bumper stickers as being effective, have at it.
Most of what he discusses is outside of the purview of the actual executive office. So his pandering is even more pathetic.
See his views on transgenderism where he tries to ply both sides. He argues parents and doctors have a say, but then they don't with surgery despite medication having similar long term issues such as sterilization.
If you've ever listened to him for more than 5 minutes you'd understand he has no depth. But you do you.
You’d be better served by reading his comments outside of a curated setting as a campaign site.
But not with Trump, you see. With Trump, one must focus only on his published, polished, curated campaign policy proposals, and ignore the impromptu word salads that emerge from his pie hole.
But hey, if you are for bumper stickers as being effective, have at it.
As opposed to Trump’s nuanced detailed policy positions that aren’t just shallow bumper sticker slogans, like I don’t know, “Make America Great Again”.
I love how idiots like Jesse try to hold Chase Oliver to some high standard that they never hold their own candidate to. It was the same with JoJo. She made one tweet that triggered a lot of the right-wing libertarians around here, and suddenly, because she wasn't PERFECT, that was totally disqualifying. So they voted for Trump...
Chase Oliver is the most libertarian candidate in the race. By far. It is not even close.
But because Chase Oliver is gay, and he won't completely ban transgender health care, and is gay, and he didn't arrive at libertarianism via Ron Paul and the Mises Caucus, and is gay, and he thinks the Israel-Hamas war is a 'genocide', and is gay, and won't totally denounce and ostracize everyone who voluntarily wore a mask during the pandemic, and is gay, and he doesn't suck up to Trump, and oh also is gay, all the people who criticize him for not being PERFECT is going to vote for Trump who is accidentally libertarian about 5% of the time, and that is on a good day.
Poor Jeff.
I'd like to know what you're smoking as it's pretty strong shit.
But because Chase Oliver is gay, and he won’t completely ban transgender health care, and is gay
Fuck off with your gay-baiting, shill. The alphabet sex cult with its gynephilia and transvestic fetishism has zero to do with same sex attraction.
Oh, and fuck off with your "child castration IS healthcare" narrative too. There's nothing healthy about poisoning kids with chemotherapy drugs or cutting off their gonads.
Your so demonically evil.
I’ll need to hear more details about this complaint, which y’all seem to know more about.
If Oliver is on record calling for government enforcement of masking and social distancing, I would dock him about 500 points.
If he merely chose to wear a mask and social distance himself, then it depends.
Obnoxiously critical of others who made a different choice, and making no comment about their right to do so, minus 50 points.
Obnoxiously critical of others who made a different choice, while acknowledging their right to do so, minus 10 points.
Merely choosing to wear a mask and distance himself, without any implied criticism of others, minus 0 points.
Let me know.
You already know.
Here he is claiming libertarian principles only apply to government and it's okay for churches, clubs and businesses to impinge on people's freedoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNVpB6H6Nbo
Here he is claiming the fight against Hamas by Israel is a "genocide".
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/5/27/end-the-genocide-says-us-libertarian-presidential-candidate-chase-oliver
And here ML comes out against private property rights.
Yet more proof that the horseshoe theory of politics is correct. ML basically admitted he's a communist.
Lying Jeffy is cool with coercion.
Let's compare some levels of "coercion".
"Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere. Then you can do whatever you want and we can both be happy."
"Don't like it? You can quit and work somewhere else. Then you can do whatever you want and we can both be happy."
"Don't like it? You will obey, or we will arrest you and then physically force you to comply anyway in a prison. And if you resist being arrested we will escalate until you are either in custody or dead. There is no allowed path to you doing want you want."
That's why people who've thought about this even a little define coercion as initiation of force or threatening to initiate it.
Go fuck yourself bootlicker.
https://law.stanford.edu/2022/01/20/a-look-at-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-vaccination-mandates/
“Don’t like it? Take your business elsewhere."
Except that's not what was happening. The government was pressuring private employers to fire employees who wouldn't get the jab, and then Nazis like you, and Jeff, and Chase were going "Muh private cumpinny".
But even if the government hadn't been involved, you and Chase would moan and pule if a Catholic charity wouldn't pay for abortions or hire a gay guy to run a private school, and squeal about fascism, but firing clot shot refuseniks is A-Okay.
Fucking hypocrite.
"Bake the cake, bigot, and take the shot and lose your job because libertarian principles end on Washington DC's outskirts."
Run a church according to libertarian principles? You mean when hiring a pastor they can't impinge on his religious freedom?
You don't seem to get that freedom of association by definition includes the right to associate with some and not associate with others. And, most relevant here, to place conditions on the association.
Anyway, Oliver is running for POTUS, not pastor, so only his views on federal government are relevant. (BTW, his platform is very careful to distinguish state from federal action, I don't see Trump and Biden doing the same.)
If he was running for pastor and it was my church I'd be very concerned with his attitude about requiring a mask to attend. But he's not running for pastor, and I don't go to church.
Likewise if it was a business and I was co-owner. If I'm a customer I might make a decision to go elsewhere, but that it no way impinges on my freedom. The business owners weren't put on earth to serve me, and have no obligation to provide me with anything.
Tell us all about "bake the cake, bigot!", again.
I recommend the Just Asking Questions podcast which interviewed Chase Oliver. He is asked about his position on masking.
Spoiler alert: he earns minus 0 points on your scale.
He literally said businesses should be able to choose policy for both customers and employees. This is just pushing government power to corporations via fascism.
He doesn’t respect the individual. Most of the companies during the pandemic pushed policy through government coercion. Much of it done through regulatory bodies or pressure on insurers to corporations.
Chase probably has never read a book on fascism so just said the first libertarian sounding thing that came into his head not realizing he was basically advocating fascism.
When you get the fascist chemjeff espousing your arguments, be wary.
He literally said businesses should be able to choose policy for both customers and employees. This is just pushing government power to corporations via fascism.
No, that is called private property rights.
That is why your team's cries of 'fascism!!!' ring so hollow most of the time. Most of the time, what you all label 'fascism' is 'private property owners agreeing with government in a way that I don't like'.
He doesn’t respect the individual.
What is respectful about violating the property rights of the individual? Do you really think you are entitled to walk on anyone's private property and violate the owner's rules? If you really think that, then let me talk to you about migration on private property...
No, that is called private property rights
So “we don’t serve gays here” is ok?
Some gays are cool. How about "We don't serve Democrats"?
How about “We don’t serve Democrats”?
It’s getting to the point right now where the only thing those Nazis should be served is their teeth.
Every day Jeff posts here I’m more disgusted and appalled by what he says. He’s an absolute monster.
That shit went out the window with public accommodation laws.
Well, I happen to agree with Oliver that businesses should be allowed have stupid policies for both customers and employees. Unlike socialists, I believe the business-customer and business-employee relations are between consenting adults, with a few rare exceptions. If I don’t like a company’s policy the answer is to buy or work elsewhere.
Keep in mind I’d also support a business’ right to ban Covid masks and insist people in line stand no more than 24 inches apart. And personally, I’d prefer to do business there if one had to choose between that and six-masking.
Now, I do agree with you that quite a few “of the companies during the pandemic pushed policy through government coercion.” But what’s your solution? Mine is to stop the government from doing that, not to do more coercion in the opposite direction on the theory it somehow cancels out.
Just to take another example, I think part of support for bans on lab-meat is fear that there's an intention to someday make lab meat mandatory. I have that fear myself but decided other people have a right to buy and eat lab meat if they want to.
Libertarianism is about more than whatever power POTUS might enforce. Chase Oliver has already demonstrated his allegiance to the elitist propagandists by loudly proclaiming he won't associate with anyone who won't wear the proscribed mask costume. Regardless of any policy he imposed how would he use the presidential bully pulpit? He's already told us. He's an idiot and I don't give a shit who he associates with but it won't be me. He has no constituency. Jill Stein will kick his ass and RFK Jr. will beat him by 10 points as a write in. He won't break 1%. Have fun with your clown show while libertarianism becomes even less relevant.
Have fun with your clown show while libertarianism becomes even less relevant.
Seeing as neither he or Jeff is libertarian they won't have a problem with this. Especially as they're rooting for Biden ultimately anyway and don't want the Libertarian Party siphoning off votes.
“Unless their principle is to stay in second place.”
That is 100% the GOPe’s only principle.
I'm sure power hungry politicians are definitely conspiring to do just that. And the donors also are hoping for said results.
Very astute.
Well the oliver caucus is gunning for 3rd place.
They could caucus in a phone booth.
You think they’re gunning for third? I don’t think they’re gunning for dog catcher. Just not a serious candidate at all.
Agreed.
The guy is almost a parody of Reason Liberaltarians. When he debuted, all I could think was "The days of my not taking the Libertarian party seriously have definitely come to a middle. "
That’s funny. I’m stealing that line.
Their principle *is* to stay in second place forever.
In second place they can complain freely about the Democrat's policies, drum up campaign contributions through fearmongering, enjoy the perks of federal elected office, and never have any of the accountability that comes from being in charge of anything.
Definitely. Nail has been hit on the head. Where can I read more on this revealed truth?
Then Republicans just aren’t competing well in the political market. They need to up their game. Offer what the customers want.
Cheap spittin' tobaccy?
Cheesy poofs in bigger bags!
They are just going to have to ban harder! If people would just do what they are supposed to do, the government wouldn’t have to force them
/jeff
Its like Mr Blonde.
'If they hadn't done what I told them not to do . . . '
Breaking news! (WSJ):
U.S. Approves First Menthol-Flavored Vapes
Altria’s NJOY brand wins FDA authorization for four products, after the agency previously ordered many menthol-flavored vapes off the market
It's almost like government agencies are responding to election year strategies. I guess that's how democracy is supposed to work, right?
It’s almost like government agencies are responding to
election yearthick brown envelope strategies.Are those envelopes filled with cash or with embarrassing photos?
Could be both.
Are you suggesting that the health professionals at the CDC would suspend life saving bans to ensure that a certain constituency doesn't leave the plantation? I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories but wow. Just wow.
'Something similar happened when Massachusetts banned menthol cigarettes in 2019. Proponents of the ban argued that it would lower smoking rates among black adults, the primary consumers of menthol tobacco products.... Smokers were undeniably worse off after their state government took away their right to choose and forced them into a black market.'
A "black" market? Did these brilliant government experts achieve a new form of equity capitalism?
Separate but equal!
Dude. All the smokers died of lung cancer and heart disease. Don't you follow the BS propaganda? They were all going to die back in the 90s. Here it is 2024; they're all dead! /s
There was a handful of survivors but Covid took them out on day one.
Democrats in Nevada due RFK to keep him off the ballot despite qualifying. I'm sure Garland is going to go after democrats in the state for conspiracy and deprivation of rights.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/21/us-news/dems-sue-rfk-jr-over-nevada-presidential-bid-saying-hes-not-really-independent-wants-to-play-spoiler/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost
Totally necessary to save democracy
You can't let just anyone named Kennedy appear on the ballot. People might think he's related to the Kennedy's.
There's democracy and then there's (D)emocracy (aka oligarchy). They only want to save one of those.
George
@BehizyTweets
BREAKING: Pedo catcher Alex Rosen just busted the leader of the LGBTQ Democrats of Maryland, trying to meet with a 14-year-old
.
Allegedly, his name is Michael Knaapen, who is also a member of the Maryland Democratic Party Executive Committee
I am sure this has the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Or maybe it's one the them new cheapfakes.
You’re right to be skeptical here, as the police and prosecutors say there’s no case to be made, as these vigilantes are not transparent and didn’t provide a shred of usable evidence.
There’s a reason Chris Hansen gave up on this stuff and it wasn’t the ratings.
If smokers tend to die earlier than non smokers, then wouldn’t they consume fewer Medicare and SS dollars over their shorter lifespans?
If that’s the case, then wouldn’t it be cheaper in the long run to let them smoke?
Yes, and obviously. The nanny state “saves health costs” arguments generally use dishonest accounting. They ignore the fact that early death is a *huge* cost savings for the whole system.
Majority of studies that claim obesity or smoking reduces long term costs have to use bad assumptions in the data. They take average lifespan of each cohort then use average age based metrics to assume Healthcare costs. This is false assumption analysis as most Healthcare costs are spent in the last few years of someone’s life regardless if they die at 73 or 60.
By using solely age based statistics then smokers and obesity seems to be cheaper because they die younger. But they still have elevated costs in the equal age based cohort. They seem cheaper through a slight of hand. Cancer risks are even of the highest medical costs in the system, but having smokers aggregated for costs with non smokers at a younger age ignores these end of life costs.
Many studies that separate the cohorts instead of using the aggregate data disagree smokers save money in the long term.
https://ash.org/hidden-costs-healthcare/
The above doesn’t do so, but having problems finding the non year comparative data. But just from that you can assume the average smoker costs 10% a year more. So unless smokers die much earlier than non smokers, there isnt a savings to be had.
Holy cow, an actual serious data-based argument. Maybe I'm wrong about "huge" cost savings, or even saving at all, if we're taking solely about health care.
But if it's about a person being a net burden on the taxpayers - which I know concerns you - then shouldn't savings on Social Security due to early deaths be counted also?
If it's all about saving costs the best death is a healthy life ended in a hunting accident on your 67th birthday.
Amazingly some of us have read the actual studies, have careers in data analysis, but get tired of fighting against facial analysis of those who don’t.
And no SS, while a concern, is dwarfed by medicaid and Medicare.
The average person, as of a few years ago, contributes 150k into the system but takes out about triple that, a large percentage in that last year. The quest for the fountain of youth is a misguided one. Likewise SS is more at risk from funds spent on SS disability which exploded under Obama who reduced requirements for the program and it continues today. Reforming even that would add immense longevity to the program. Add on the medicaid costs for the cohort and Healthcare costs are far more costly than savings from 10 to qy years of SS outlays. Ss outlays are already capped. And already extremely progressive which are the biggest issues.
I have a difficult time believing you analyze data when all you talk about is people.
Like you just did?
Come on, sarc, he's trying to be reasonable today. You could do it too.
He won’t be reasonable with me, ever. He treats some people fairly and singles others out to always be mean to. That’s why I say he’s got the maturity of a middle school girl.
Poor sarc. Professional victim.
Always the victim, never the perp. Everyone here treats him like used toilet paper because they're jealous mean girls, and totally not because he's a trolling cunt.
I’ve given him many chances to be reasonable and every time I was Charlie Brown and he was Lucy holding the ball. Every. Single. Time.
He may be reasonable with you, but he will never be reasonable with me because he’d lose face with his mean girls clique.
Just ask. He’ll tell you.
Are you talking about people again?
LMAO..... ASH.ORG? Straight from the propaganda-centrals mouth?
Now why would anyone question that source? /s
You sure are a sucker for "The Science" lately.
Plenty of pack-a-day smokers live into their 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Maybe it’s other life choices that skew “smokers” mortality rates downwards?
That’s why they say smoking increases risk of cancer, heart disease, etc, as opposed to saying it is a cause.
Indeed. Nicotine is not a carcinogen.
"According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, "nicotine is not generally considered to be a carcinogen."[39][40] The Surgeon General of the United States indicates that evidence is inadequate to infer even a causal relationship between exposure to nicotine and risk for cancer."
It's all been just a sh*t-show of BS propaganda. It's baffling how many worshiped the BS without letting in even a pebbles worth of reality.
I don't think anyone is claiming that nicotine is what causes lung cancer in smokers.
Pretty sure they're inferring as much or back-yard BBQ'ing and Camp Fires would have 10-times the BS propaganda surrounding it.
Been smoking for 50 years and I'm still here bitches. Meanwhile I've seen a whole lot of non smoking friends and acquaintances drop dead. I realize my evidence is anecdotal. But lies, damn lies and statistics.
No your not. "The Science" told us you're dead. /s
Yeah but it was either with Covid or by Covid. The autopsy was inconclusive.
I think a lot of it is that some people are just more resistant or prone to cancer. Obviously it's not a simple cause and effect where if you smoke for X years, then you get lung cancer (or COPD or whatever).
If you're ever bored, compare smoking rates in the 60s along with heart disease and lung cancer deaths to those metrics of current times.
^THIS – An 80% drop in smoking rates and a 0% decreasing drop in heart disease and lung cancer deaths. It’s been such a joke.
Just like the climate 'religion' though; reality just can't get in the way of a good line of BS.
No. Many former smokers just got fat and sedentary, replacing one bad habit with two bad habits.
7 years too late. But poor sarc/shrike/jeff.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
Democrats are just completely losing their shit over this, and who can blame them? Look at how many times Jeff, Mike, Buttplug and Sarcasmic have pushed the lie here.
Fun to read the full transcript of the exchange, and how Trump manages to stay consistent---and civilized--despite multiple attempts by the "reporter" to put word's in Trump's mouth.
And in the end they just made it up anyway, and thousands of shitheads like Buttplug spread it for them.
Lab wars: Inside one Democrat's 20-year crusade to save the world from Anthony Fauci — Part 1: 2001-2014
https://www.theblaze.com/news/lab-wars-inside-one-democrat-s-20-year-crusade-to-save-the-world-from-anthony-fauci-part-1-2001-2014
Deep dive featuring Dick Cheney, Anthrax, Smallpox, lab leaks, and much more.
It's strange how a guy who was Dick Cheney's very own Unit 731 and was opposed by Obama, became a Democratic Party hero overnight.
The enemy of my enemy.
Anything that could be done to divide people along political lines was done. Anything.
You don't understand, Hamilton. Its because of lax tobacco-control laws in neighboring jurisdictions that DCians can get easy access to illegal tobacco smuggled across the border.
The solution here is obvious - federal authority to institute a nationwide set of tobacco-control laws that pre-empt state control. If its banned across the country, DC will be safe.
It’s a policy that’s been working well for drugs!
And will work as well for guns.
Also, vapes aren't 'tobacco products' - they contain no tobacco. And you should not use the enemy's terminology when they're using it in order to construct a false narrative.
Yeah, it's been a stretch that vape products fall under tobacco regulations for a while now but that doesn't seem to slow their roll. Nicotine itself, while certainly addictive, is probably not as deadly as they want to pretend. Caffeine is also addictive, yet somehow Starbucks exists.
I don't think anybody claims that nicotine is deadly. It's present in vegetables that people eat every day. Everybody tests positive for nicotine. Everybody.
Banning murder hasn't worked either. Maybe if we ban certain types of weapons used in some murders?
BREAKING: The former Democrat Governor of New York just admitted live on air that the Trump case would've never been brought if Trump wasn't running for President
"I'm telling you, that case would have never been brought. And that's what's offensive to people. And it should be."
Even Coumo can recognize what the onetruelibertarian JeffSarcDee refuse to acknowledge. That these are political prosecutions which are the hallmark of totalitarian regimes.
Think sarc and shrike will realize they are further left than cuomo?
No, they will just label Cuomo as a house nigger.
MSNBC ran a story on the hardships of modern dating and interviewed a girl who stopped dating for the better part of a year because her date denigrated the BLM movement
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Chemjeff laughing with delight
The day the music died
The human species, or at least a subset, is set on self-extinction. And probably deserves it.
BREAKING David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK comes to counter protest Turning Point USA event.
Gee, this isn't the narrative Jeff and Buttplug have been pushing here. They claimed the guy was MAGA.
Gosh, do you guys think that they might have been... fibbing?
Just maybe. It wouldn't be like them to lie all the fucking time, now, would it?
This TikToker is upset that employers won't accommodate her "time blindness" aka someone who routinely shows up to work late.
Shows up late but leaves on time.
Shows up just in time for the mandated break. On the clock.
You know who else suffered from time blindness?
Einstein?
Ford Prefect? "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so."
The largest pilot's union has its eyes on the important problems facing aviation.
The world’s largest airline pilot union, Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA), has urged the aviation community to stop using terms considered offensive to women and LGBTQ individuals, such as “cockpit.”
Representing over 70,000 pilots globally, ALPA collaborates with a United Nations agency on its policies. Their 2021 diversity, equity, and inclusion language guide lists several terms and phrases to avoid, particularly “masculine generalizations,” to promote inclusion and equity.
The guide suggests replacing “cockpit” with “flight deck,” citing that the former term has been used derogatorily to exclude women. It also advises against using terms like “manpower,” recommending “people/human power” instead, and discourages addressing groups as “guys” due to its non-inclusive nature.
ALPA also recommends avoiding “mother/father” and “husband/wife” to respect diverse family structures and same-sex couples.
We need more science based terms, like “chestfeeder” and “front hole”.
I always thought wen a pilot said cock pit they were refer g to stewardesses
Will they consider "lady dick pit"?
How is cockpit offensive?
Seriously. I don't know.
The term comes from early fighters, like the term "dogfight", describing aerial combat like a cock fight. Like roosters, in a cockpit, trying to get an advantage so they can kill each other. Is it because roosters are boy chickens?
Unions have too much power. Their job is to negotiate wages and working conditions for their members. Anything outside of that is a waste of resources, and the fact that they're heavy political targets for this sort of takeover by politically motivated groups shows that they have far too much power.
What's immoral about unions is the idea that workers can refuse to show up for work, yet the government forbids their former employers from hiring replacements.
That's just ONE thing immoral about unions.
How about a closed shop, where you cannot work there without being in the union? How about massive lobbying with union dues, gathered from government employees, so you are basically bribing the employer with taxpayer funds? How about, I dunno, decades of mob influence? Did we suddenly forget about that?
Unions can have their place. But when they're massively partisan lobbying companies, not simple worker's advocates, they become evil.
Where do they stand on girl boss?
You guys need to look at the pics. Looks like they found their new Sam Brinton.
Tyler Cherry is the new White House Associate Communications Director.
Although Tyler is physically incapable of defending himself, he advocates for defunding the police & abolishing ICE.
Tyler is also a pro-Hamas supporter.
Let me edit what I posted above. The entire human species deserves extinction.
Too late. The welfare state canceled evolution. We need a new pandemic. I mean a real one not that phony Covid shit.
(June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly)
Please refrain from Juneteenth rioting.
Funny how the usual suspects don't seem terribly concerned about the blatant First Amendment violations going on in Louisiana. Gee I wonder why? That's a (R)eal mystery!
The morons can't even count their Ten Commandments correctly.
https://boingboing.net/2024/06/22/louisianas-new-ten-commandments-law-actually-contains-eleven-commandments.html
I'm sure the usual suspects will be here shortly to either try to defend this nonsense, or half-heartedly object to it (but being very clear to point out that THE OTHER TEAM IS WORSE), or to claim that it's all justified because Democrats do it too, but not to condemn it on its own without reservation or qualification or reference to anyone on the other team.
Whatever it is Democrats did it first and worse. So talking about Republicans is covering for Democrats. That means you are a left-handed, liberal, leftist leftist.
Whatever it is, ignore the democrats doing it.
That’s what I said. Talking about Republicans is ignoring Democrats. However talking about Democrats is not ignoring Republicans because whatever it is Democrats are worse. That means unbiased people only talk about Democrats because the mere mention of Republicans outs one’s self as a left-handed, liberal leftist leftist.
Boring
Pour Sarc.
You and Jeffy sure hate ancient Jewish law codes, huh?
Which one do you think Jeffy hates the most? “THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS” or “THOU SHALT NOT STEAL”?
I’m betting “THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY” and “THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S GOODS” are the two that really stick in your craw.
Hey Lying Jeffy! What would you do if Louisiana also wanted to also teach the Hammurabi Code and Magna Carta?
Would that be Double MAGA?
Telling kids that whiteness is evil, CO2 is immanentizing the apocalypse and giving blowjobs to adult men is okay as long as they’re queer identifying totally isn’t religion in the classroom, but a bronze age historical document is practically Hitler.
Fuck you Jeff, you dystopian hypocrite, and fuck your bumlicker sarcasmic.
Hey! I'm left-handed, and I resemble that remark, and being associated in any way with chemjeff.
States rights, my man.
This is public (read Tax money) education in action.
No government has the just authority to deprive individuals of their fundamental liberties.
How taxes are used isn't a fundamental liberty, since the taxes and their usage is an emergent phenomenon.
Bake the cake!
Bake the cake!
So, apparently, Trump wants a "migrant fighting league" alongside UFC.
https://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-dana-white-migrant-fighting-league/
So, how should we interpret his comments?
1. Yet one more example of his bigoted xenophobia.
2. Trump didn't really mean it. You can't take him literally. Stop obsessing about every little thing that he says. It means you have TDS!!!! (But Chase Oliver, on the other hand, you must focus on his tweets and unscripted comments...)
3. Well, Democrats put migrant kids in cages, this isn't any worse than that!!!
4. TRUMP IS RIGHT, the migrants are a bunch of violent thugs who would probably beat anyone in the world in UFC fighting! Why are you denying how Trump is so obviously right? It means you have TDS!!!!
Answer: anything but #1.
Poor jeff
“I said, Dana, I have an idea,” the former president began. “Why don’t you set up a migrant league of fighters, and have your regular league of fighters, and then you have the champion of your league — these are the greatest fighters in the world — fight the champion of the migrants? I think the migrant guy might win! That’s how tough they are.”
Jeff's whole schtick here is attempting to tie illegal immigrants to racism using a 'phobia" buzzword, and implying that different nationalities competing against each other is somehow racist.
Wait until Jeffy finds out about the World Cup in Soccer or the Olympics. He's going to shit himself.
What dishonest garbage Jeff is.
2, 3 and 4
So, how should we interpret his comments?
Segregation was never out of style.
We just pretended that it wasn't.
Yeah, why can't Trump act like sophisticated billionaire Democrats and treat immigrants with human compassion, especially as nannies and grounds-keepers.
Because they aren’t human. They are vermin. And when you have a vermin problem, you call an exterminator.
You really are broken, aren't you?
He's lying. Not broken. Broken implies his dishonesty isn't deliberate.
No no no. You can't judge Trump by the words he says. That is unfair and a sign of TDS.
Chase Oliver, however, can be completely judged by a handful of tweets he once made.
He’s gay. That’s all any of these Trumpians who call people they don’t like “fag” or “homo” need to know.
Literally nobody here did that you fucking strawman master craftsman.
You're the embodiment of every stupid fallacy you accuse others here of. Go ahead, you liar. Give one example where I did that.
No no no. You can’t judge Trump by the words he says.
You instead have to judge him by the shit Team Jeffy makes up.
Like "Trump called neo-Nazis fine people", or "Trump said to drink bleach", or "Trump banned Muslims", or "Trump tried to nuke a hurricane", or "Trump said all Mexicans are rapists", or "Trump teargassed Lafayette Square", or "Trump wants to nuke North Korea/Iran", or "Trump reads Hitler", ad nauseam...
Oh there is plenty of bigotry to go around.
Towards migrants, the bigotry of the right tends to be angry and mean, while the bigotry of the left tends to be condescending and infantilizing. It would be nice, however, for those around here who support restrictive immigration policies to actually defend those policies without resorting to rank bigotry.
Let me get some paracord for the winner.
Why? Is paracord part of some edgy new meme?
A good MMA fighter can make between $500 grand and $3million a fight. It's based on their fan base, and an immigrant fighter who's reasonably good could count on fellow illegals for a following.
You guys don't want immigrants to get ahead?
What Trump fans love most about him: he’s “for the people”
https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-is-facts-trump-fans-at-rally-say-why-they-love-trump-most-innocent-man-ever-is-not-in-it-for-money-or-fame/
YOUNG TRUMP FAN: Um, you want me to do, what’s the question?
JESSICA RIVERA: Yeah, so, you know, nobody stays involved. Nobody has this much stamina to continue to fight, especially a person who came in is already a millionaire billionaire, right? He doesn’t need this job to make money.
So, shouldn’t that be…
OLDER TRUMP FAN: Commitment to the people. Commitment to the people. That’s Trump. Shouldn’t that be enough for people to understand where Trump is coming from?
YOUNG TRUMP FAN: Yeah, I think it shows that Trump is like built different and like he he’s not doing this for the benefit. Like like he was already a billionaire before, nice properties around the world.
Like he’s doing it because he cares about people and I think like you said, all the stuff he’s going through shows it because like if I just wanted the power if I just wanted the money or fame like I You know what any other politician would have dropped out like criminal cases You know all that but I think it shows that he’s in it for the people and that’s why he wants to continue.
It’s shameless populist demagoguery. That’s all. That is Trump’s appeal.
Yes, it should be all about shameless government powers.
And he doesn’t mean what he says. Except when he does. How do you know the difference? You just know. See?
"It’s shameless populist demagoguery"
Populism used to be called democracy, until the gentry class Jeff shills for decided that true (D)emocracy meant handing power over to them because they know best.
Can't let the poors decide on their own destiny. What do they know? Their pa-paw didn't pay their way through Harvard like civilized humans.
The most incredible part of this story is that people in New York use public trash bins.
Banning flavored tobacco products will never stop people from smoking—instead, lawmakers are once again causing unregulated and potentially dangerous black markets to rise up
Libertarianism Plus! Flavored Tobacco should be safe, legal and rare.
We must have regulated markets! It’s the only way to freedom!
Yeah whatever. It seems fairly obvious to me, anyway, that this magazine does not cater to the hardcore doctrinaire libertarian crowd. It caters more to the much broader segment of the population which might be questioning here and there some of the decisions made by the red/blue duopoly, but which is not ready to embrace, say, the concept of heroin vending machines.
So the argument of "banning flavored tobacco is a bad idea because it just creates an underground market where the product is of unknown quality and very likely dangerous" is going to be a much easier sell than the argument of "banning flavored tobacco is a bad idea, actually all tobacco should be legal and completely unregulated". That latter argument is more likely to drive away more people than it attracts.
Senator John Thune: Gaslighter, or just an idiot?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4733881-republicans-trump-debate/
Yeah, Trump is going to have a "calm demeanor". Sure.
Yeah, not like this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbksEufyOEA
Researchers went through the trash in the two cities and found that over 99 percent of the vapes collected from the urban trash cans were flavored tobacco products, despite consumers in those cities being barred from legally purchasing those products.
Duh, obviously those trashed vapes had been brought in from other localities.
Can we please stop demonizing China?
This all started innocently enough in the 1970s, when people were aware that smoking was simply an unhealthy habit and maybe there should be non-smoking sections in airplanes and other public areas for those who didn’t like to ne around a lot of smoke. Well, here we are 50 years later, and not only have the current anti-tobacco crusaders convinced most people, including my sixth grade son that vaping is worse than smoking, they are going after freaking nicotine pouches too, because the kiddos might like them. But somehow, I can go into a CVS in DC, NYC, or Boston and buy a pack of cherry or mint flavored nicorette gum, which is no different than Zyn. This is all about power and money for big pharma and anti tobacco groups, it has not been about health for the past 30 years
an assortment of flavored tobacco products to choose from—strawberry banana, blue raspberry, spearmint, black cherry.
How does anyone not read that and think that this article is solely about cosmopolitan karens. Or homosexuals.
"Yeth, pleathe, I'd like the blue rathberry tobacco. Becauth I'm a faggot."