Jonah Goldberg: What do progressives have against vaporous substances? |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: What do progressives have against vaporous substances?

Jonah Goldberg
A man breathes vapes from an e-cigarette at a vape shop in London. While the U.S. scrambles to crack down on vaping, Britain has embraced electronic cigarettes as a powerful tool to help smokers kick the habit.

In the classic 1979 comedy “The Jerk,” Steve Martin plays a very dumb guy who often misses the point. In one scene, while he’s working as a gas station attendant, an assassin tries to kill him with a high-powered rifle. When the bullets start whizzing past his head and popping holes in some motor oil cans, he immediately assumes the cans must be defective because they’re spontaneously springing leaks. When the sniper is pointed out to him, he then concludes: “He hates these cans!” He then runs past a soda vending machine, and as the bullets rip into that, he shouts, “There are cans in there too!”

That 40-year-old scene comes to mind in part because that’s how my middle-aged brain is wired, but also because I occasionally wonder whether American progressives have a similar feeling about gaseous or vaporous substances. Sometimes I shout at the TV, “They hate these gases!”

Consider vaping. We’re in the middle of something close to a full-on moral panic about the practice. The president is considering taking drastic action against the nicotine delivery systems. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who recently instituted an emergency ban on flavored vape products, says, “Vaping is dangerous, period.” There are so many bans on vaping and e-cigarettes that Wikipedia has a massive list of all the states, counties and towns that outlaw the allegedly pernicious devices.

Now, I sympathize with the effort to make it harder for nonsmoking minors to pick up vaping as a habit. And while I think the bans on flavored vape products aimed at kids will inevitably lead to a black market (a possibility that many of the same anti-vaping progressives concede when the issue is, say, drugs or prostitution), there’s still room for reasonable regulations on that front.

It’s also worth noting that nearly all moral panics begin with an argument about “the children,” yet they rarely end there. Besides, bans on vaping in bars and workplaces aren’t aimed at kids anyway.

That said, vaping is almost surely a huge public health boon because it helps people addicted to cigarettes quit. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Cancer Society and, yes, even the FDA have said that vaping is less harmful than smoking tobacco. My own mother, who tried to quit smoking many times over some six decades, only succeeded when she switched to e-cigarettes.

The recent scare about a mysterious lung disease afflicting a handful of vapers isn’t about the standard nicotine products but about the vaping of unregulated THC (the fun stuff in marijuana) products.

In almost every other realm of public health, harm reduction is a priority. That’s why schools hand out condoms, why various cities give free needles to heroin users, etc. But for some reason, vaping doesn’t count, at least not in America.

Now consider fracking. If climate change or air pollution are like cancer, burning coal is like smoking unfiltered Camels, and natural gas is like vaping. Yes, in the progressive vision of a perfect world, we’d kick our addiction to all fossil fuels overnight just like everyone would kick the nicotine habit. But if the aim is harm reduction, fracking has been yet another boon, not only reviving countless economically depressed areas and weening us off foreign oil but also significantly reducing our overall CO2 emissions.

There’s a legitimate debate about how much the drop-off in CO2 emissions is directly attributable to fracking, but no one disputes that it’s far better than coal or that coal-generated electricity is rapidly being phased out thanks to the natural gas boom.

And, as with vaping, the response is, “Not good enough! Let’s ban it!” Indeed, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is so passionate about the fracking issue, she vows to unilaterally impose an illegal and unconstitutional ban on the practice the moment she’s elected. (I guess Warren thinks she won’t need Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.)

I understand that progressives don’t irrationally hate gases and vapors. If they did, they might be more concerned about the breakneck pace of marijuana legalization. But it’s weird how science and harm reduction are important lodestars for progressives, except when they aren’t.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of “Suicide of the West.”

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.