Legalize and Unregulate E-Cigs and Cigarettes

Survey results over the past decade have indicated that the “use of electronic cigarettes by American teenagers continues to rise, even as their use of conventional cigarettes continues to fall”. At the same time, critics of electronic cigarettes have called for greater regulation of the e-cigs industry to address this trend and supplement current anti-tobacco consumption efforts. However, these opponents fail to realize that there is no evidence that demonstrates e-cigs are a “gateway to smoking”. In fact, a recent review in the journal Addiction, found that the “Regular use of [e-cigarettes] by non-smokers is rare, and no migration from [e-cigarettes] to smoking has been documented.” This evidence supports the statements that “lighter” drugs tend to rarely lead to the use of harder drugs, and in the case of e-cigs; they hardly lead to increased cigarette use.

In regards to e-cigarettes, the “National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), last year put…past-month e-cigarette use among all high school students at 4.5 percent.” More so, “daily smoking is also less common than ever before. “6.7 percent of high school seniors reported daily smoking use, down from 26.9 percent in 1975, when the study started, and 12.3 percent in 2007, when e-cigarettes were first marketed in the United States.”

Furthermore, e-cigs help teenagers and young smokers quit as they are able to smoke e-cigs rather than the normal and more deadly types of cigarettes. According to a study from Monitoring the Future, “Among the 12th-graders who…smoked a cigarette…17.5 percent…used only cigarettes in the previous month, 16.7 percent…used only e-cigarettes, 21.5 percent…used both, and 44.3 percent…used neither.” Indeed, this demonstrates that although e-cig use is rising, they’re helping teenagers reduce cigarette consumption and ultimately negate the harmful effects of smoking.

Beyond the scientific evidence behind e-cigs, we need to morally oppose any government infringement upon an individual’s rights to determine what goes into their body. If individuals decide to consume e-cigs or cigarettes, then they have made the decision for themselves.

Additionally, if e-cig and cigarette use negatively impacts the health of others, then those victims can rightfully sue the cigarette smokers for purposely violating their individual rights. That solution would certainly create long term declines in smoking rather than foolish government smoking regulations that would serve only to drive cigarette sales and use underground and encourage the use of harder drugs.

Offtopic: Millennials in the federal workforce

A recent article by the Washington Post interested me and it explains how millennials are being scared away from federal jobs. Millennials are generally considered people who are born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. As the baby-boomer generation retires millennials are expected to take their place, but figures show that the percent of federal workers under the age of 30 has been slowly declining since 2011. In 2013, employees under 30 accounted for 9% of those who left the government. Why is this happening? Why isn’t the government trying harder to train fresh young talent to federal positions?

One noticeable problem is the hiring process and the government’s Pathways internship program. The Pathways program was designed to attract young people onto a federal career path, but it has been filled with problems that very few have actually been hired. In a review by the Partnership for Public Service, poor hiring staff, widespread communication problems, and a weak system to review applications all have been noted as problems. Millennials have also been turning to the private sector for jobs. Why invest in a federal career when you could be hired during your last year of grad school?

I’ve always wanted to work for the government and at this rate I’m not sure if that route will be viable in a few years. Why network and work my way up the bureaucracy when I can just get hired by a private company and have a solid stable job? I truly believe that our government should be reaching out to the younger generation and encouraging them to take a federal job so that our country doesn’t fall apart because there’s nobody to run it.

Lift the U.S. Embargo on Cuba For Freedom and Prosperity to Cubans

On Wednesday, President Obama authorized the reinstatement of full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba and the opening of a U.S. embassy in Havana.  Republicans have mistakenly criticized the move as impeding freedom and democracy in Cuba for decades to come. One of them, Senator Marco Rubio, castigated Obama’s decision, claiming “[W]hat the president is saying, by recognizing Cuba's government is that in the 21st century being a Communist, brutal dictatorship is an acceptable form of government.” However, Republicans are nearsighted to assume that existing relations with Cuba has brought democracy and a freer government in Cuba when the last 50 years has shown the opposite.

Furthermore, it’s clear that misguided sanctions and embargoes cannot bring long term regime change as seen in several instances, especially when the U.S. attempted to force Iraq to comply with its demands through an embargo that resulted in the death of 1,200,000 Iraqis from starvation and disease from 1990-1998, and now with a Cuban government that has only become more repressive over time in response to the U.S. embargo that constricts economic growth. It’s time to go further and lift the reckless embargo from Cuba, and allow the people of Cuba to become exposed to the market, Western companies, and weaken the influence of the communist Cuban regime.

In regards to President Obama’s decision, the United States will “ease restrictions on remittances, travel and banking” while “Cuba will allow more Internet access, release 53 Cubans identified as political prisoners by the United States, and Alan Gross, an American contractor”.  This also comes at a time when nearly six in ten Americans support re-establishing relations with Cuba, according to a New York Times poll conducted in October. Indeed, this demonstrates that most Americans have recognized that forcefully isolating a country to create regime change fails to work.  

At last, a possible lift of the U.S. embargo on Cuba will obliterate the common beliefs that the U.S. is the sole party responsible for Cuba’s struggles. Additionally, more interaction with the West will bring freedom to the Cuban people. Therefore, I urge a Republican controlled Congress to observe the proven connection between freer markets and individual freedom, and lift the Cuban embargo once and for all. After all, as President Obama stated, “I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result.”

Decline in oil price: Implications on renewable resources

Crude Oil Price History. Mactrotrends.net

Financial Investment in Clean Energy

The decrease in oil prices may have huge impacts on green technology says an article by The Independent. Green energy technology such as solar and wind can no longer rely on a sharp increase in oil prices in the 2020s and 2030s. The economic argument for green technology banked on the idea that renewable resources would gradually become less expensive as fossil fuel prices rise. With the consensus that oil prices will remain low for the next couple of years, the push towards the use of renewable resources might have been severely slowed for now.  I feel like the economic benefits of green technology alw
ays outweigh the environmental impacts. It doesn’t matter how big of a difference it makes, as long as it’s bringing in money and is cheaper than oil, people will invest into it.

The article also touches on some consumer impacts of the decline in oil prices. Aircraft fuel prices will also decrease resulting in a decreased price for travelers.  The environmental impacts of this could be huge, as air travel emits more pollution than just CO2.  The cost of energy bills, transportation, manufacturing and distribution are all predicted to decrease. You can probably guess what I think of this already. People will start getting excited about their new energy bills and gas prices that they totally forget about the environmental impacts of their actions. Businessmen will halt their investments on renewable resources and development of green technology will slow down drastically until people find a BETTER incentive to invest again. (Cuz preserving Earth isn't a good enough reason rite?)

Abolish University Speech Codes

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), “Close to 60% of campuses in 2013 substantially abridged the First Amendment rights of faculty and students.” The foundation’s latest report also surveyed “427 public and private four-year colleges and says it found 250 speech codes that are facially unconstitutional.”  These codes cover anything from speech that is found to harass an individual to speech found to verbally assault another person, which can dangerously extend to any speech that is found to be “offensive”.  As a result, these policies stifle free expression on campus and foster close-minded environments resistant to change and revolution.

In one recent event, students at Coastal Carolina University faced disciplinary action for sidewalk chalk protesting racial and judicial injustice after the Ferguson grand jury decision. Three of the students caught in the act were detained by CCU police but the university has said that it will not pursue criminal charges. However, they have been charged with violating the university’s code of conduct, including “vandalism” , and $1000 in damages. Even more ridiculously, the university explained its decision in that “the individuals did not get prior approval from the Office of Student Life, as is required”.  

Furthermore, students in high school face the same censorship many college students encounter during their college education. In an incident similar to Coastal Carolina, in Lewiston, Maine, the Lewiston School Administration took down a #BlackLivesMatter poster because it stated that the students had not gone through the proper poster approval process. It is simply a disgrace for a high school to restrict such speech because these limitations teach students unquestionable obedience to the rules of their oppressors. These boundaries also allow a broad limitation of speech in the hopes of preventing any speech that may “offend” someone, and can even extend to the private sphere as schools are increasingly able to regulate student affairs outside of school time. 

Ultimately, to reverse this terrifying trend and restore free expression and speech among every college and school campus across America, these speech codes must be abolished. Having them codified into educational institutions only stifles the interaction of ideas, encourages obedience to an oppressive authority, and prevents the growth of well rounded individuals. Thus, I urge educational institutions to eliminate all speech codes and deal with any cases of right violations between students in a sensible manner that respects the rights of both sides.

The Washington Post – Andrew Napolitano - Racial sensitivity and militarization of police make an explosive brew

Napolitano is completely right when he says, “The city of Ferguson, Missouri, is now burned into our consciousness in a way that few other places are.” What people don’t realize is that civil disturbances with the police have been occurring in America for decades. How many people associate LA with Rodney King instead of Hollywood or Newark with John Weerd Smith compared to the number of people that associate Ferguson with Michael Brown and Darren Wilson?

Napolitano also blames the county prosecutor for being “afraid to take responsibility”, a governor MIA, and Obama “who sounds like he wants to federalize police” for the failure in Ferguson. He also blames the local police force for making "its minority populace feel vulnerable". Racial tensions are so inherently ingrained into our minds that it will take the contributions of ALL Americans and at ALL levels of government to get rid of it once and for all. 

Sure we can protest police brutality, but who is in charge of the police? Who punishes them? Who gives them their paycheck? Who gives them billions of dollars in grants? Do protest, do advocate for change, do open your minds because some action is better than NO action, but be sure to focus on the roots of the problems and as Napolitano asks,”Can we use the tragedy of Ferguson to achieve a freedom-generated, nonracial consensus on all this?”

‘Murica

Reason Magazine - Bobby Suave - Listen Up, Liberals: Make Everything Illegal, Create More Eric Garners

In the article Listen up, Liberals: Make Everything Illegal, Create more Eric Garners in Reason Magazine, Robby Suave asserts an interesting contention, made by many conservatives and libertarians, that cigarette taxes were a “contributing factor in Garner's death”. In fact, Eric Garner was allegedly selling single cigarettes before his death. Why was he purportedly selling cigarettes?

Well, New York has the highest cigarette tax in the country at $4.35 per pack, plus another $1.50 levied in the city itself. As a result, there is higher demand for cheaper cigarettes that are smuggled through the black market and comprise 60.9% of the cigarette market in NYC. Then, the police have to recoup lost legal cigarette tax revenue by tracking down distributors of smuggled cigarettes…which ultimately led to the tragic police encounter with Eric Garner.

However, this conviction has been criticized by many on the left who believe that pointing towards cigarette taxes irrelevantly derails the important underlying causes behind Garner’s death and police brutality. Nevertheless, the left needs to understand that police brutality is an extremely complex issue that involves racism in the police system and the near impossibility of punishing cops who commit terrible behavior.

Along with the absurdity of cigarette taxes and our police system, supporters of our colossal regulatory state on both the left and the right, have increasingly placed burdensome regulations on millions of objects ranging from “cigarettes to sodas of a certain size, unlicensed lemonade stands, raw milk, alcohol (for teens), marijuana, food trucks, and taxicab alternatives” that have given an already powerful police system authority to harass individuals and severely punish them for violating these idiotic laws, as they did to Garner.

Evidently, liberals – and even conservatives – need to understand that through making any good illegal, the size of government directly increases through expanded regulatory and enforcement powers. Everyone suffers the consequences of these far-reaching authorities through more fines, judicial punishments, and even death. Unsurprisingly, the poor face the most humiliation from this institution since such restrictive regulations “disproportionately fall on the backs of the poorest of the poor”.  

Undoubtedly, if we want to prevent another Garner and end the innumerable governmental injustices within our nation, we need to focus, as Suave clearly affirmed in a libertarian leaning magazine, on including “strategies to combat racism, reforming the criminal justice system and police incentive structure... and taming the maniacal leviathan that is the modern regulatory state.”

The Foolishness of the New FDA Labeling Requirements

This past Tuesday, the FDA finalized new regulations, obligated by the Affordable Care Act, that mandates the display of calorie counts on menus and vending machine labels and covers food and beverages, including alcohol, as well as businesses like “’movie theaters, sports stadiums, amusement parks, bowling alleys and miniature golf courses that serve prepared foods.’  Moreover, the new rules “would apply to any restaurant or other establishment with more than 20 locations that sells "restaurant-type food."

Nevertheless, does mandatory labeling actually work to reduce obesity and change public perceptions of fast food?

Certainly, these questions have been ignored by the federal government and the FDA as they quickly advance their plans in another “successful” attempt to address obesity that follow in the wake of 18 states and cities that have menu-labeling regulations in effect. Despite these local passages of such illogical regulations, studies such as one from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University who examined 1121 adults at two New York City McDonalds where menu-labeling is compulsory, found that “A majority…ate more than the recommended intake for a meal…[and] neither type of information had an impact on the number of calories consumed, compared to the group with no information.” Clearly, menu-labeling fails to alter the actions of consumers who have already decided they want to buy a certain product to feed their tastes.

Even with contrasting views among industry groups for and against the law, the law will drastically affect food service businesses and their offerings for the worst. Businesses like grocery stores, forced between doing calorie counts for servings of the thousands of offered foods, will shrink their product offerings and display more profitable ones like unhealthy, high caloric foods such as cookies.

Undoubtedly, the new regulations ignore concrete scientific evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrates menu-labeling does not change the behavior of consumers into consuming healthier foods and will impose expensive burdens upon businesses according to the Food Marketing Institute that states the new rules will cost more than a billion dollars, for futile public health goals. Instead of these nearsighted regulations and government force to uselessly change the behaviors of people, the government must leave the market alone and let businesses and consumers decide what is best for them. If consumers seek to consume and buy healthier foods, businesses respond through reducing unhealthy options and offering healthier foods, as is currently happening. Therefore, I urge the abolition of these regulations.

New Ozone Rules: Maybe Not So Good?

The National Weather Service’s air quality index for ozone reports that 60 - 75 ppb is “moderate” while 0 - 59 ppb is “Good”. The EPA(Environmental Protection Agency) has recently proposed to strengthen air quality regulations so that ground-level ozone levels are between 65-70 parts per billion(ppb) down from the current 75 ppb set in 2008. The EPA predicts that this will prevent up to a potential 960,000 child deaths from asthma. The agency also predicts that $6.4 to $13 billion for a 70 ppb standard and $19 to $38 billion for a 65 ppb standard would be saved annually from health costs associated with asthma, missed school days, premature deaths, and heart attacks.

Red: Areas violating a 60ppb standard
Orange: Areas anticipated to violate

These numbers sound high and mighty, but what’s the catch? There’s always a catch. Ross Eisenberg, VP of energy and resources at the National Association of Manufactures (NAM) says in a National Geographic article, “It will be the most expensive regulation of all time.” A study commissioned by the NAM reported that these new regulations could cost America $270 billion in GDP per year and 2.9 million jobs per year on average through 2040. The American Petroleum Institute predicts that PA will be expected to lose up to $193.8 billion in Gross State Product from 2017 to 2040 and 197,126 jobs annually.

So what’s the problem again? Ya, you guessed it, $$$ v. Environment. Of course money, jobs, work, and a good economy are all essential to our nation’s continued development and prosperity, but as a nation we have to decide where to draw the line, before it’s too late.  

Money in the air!! I don’t care!

Tom Steyer, a billionare hedge fund manager, reportedly spent $57 million of his own money on this November’s midterm elections to elect democrats. You would expect money = win, but things didn’t exactly turn out that way. Of the 7 democrats that Steyer and his group, NextGen Climate, spent a total of $85 million on, only 3 won. This sounds like a tremendous lost of money to a poor little soul like me, but apparently the money was “incredibly well spent”.

What did Steyer accomplish? He succeeded in bringing the issue of climate onto the frontlines, when it had always been a side issue. Steyer was able to create 350,000 “climate voters” that would help bring environmental issues to their local governments, hopefully increasing their numbers for the 2016 presidential election.

So why did so many Democrats lose despite an overwhelming amount of money being injected into their campaign? A Huffington Post article blames “Cognitive Dissonance”. Although a majority of Americans believe that global warming is a problem, many decided to vote in Republicans with opposing views. Some Republicans are skeptical of global warming, while others doubt its existence. How in the world did this happen? The ole' blame the Obama tactic, although many of his environmental policies have been supported by a majority of Americans, many voters were either too upset or uninformed to make a smart decision. The consequences? Probably major repeals in Obama's environmental protection policies. Good job guys! Murica'

Open Borders - For Prosperity and for the Future of America

On Thursday, President Obama revealed a comprehensive executive order on immigration policy, "offering temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, along with an indefinite reprieve from deportation."  Currently, there are 11.4 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States and both political parties agree that the immigration system is broken and needs major overhaul. 

However, conservatives have castigated President Obama's plan, affirming that he does not have the power to delay deportation without legislation. President Obama has countered that he has a "limited power to act" that relies on the principle that law enforcement can choose where to focus their efforts. 

Nevertheless, it seems that the executive order will not be the last word on immigration reform. Ultimately, a radical reformation of the immigration system is required; an open borders policy that affirms the overwhelming benefits of immigration - legal and illegal. 

Firstly, immigration poses little risk to immigrant receiving countries including the US. In fact, in 2007, the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 responded to this misconception...“Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that…tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." That means that immigrants beneficially work in jobs in a variety of sectors and contribute tax revenue through either income taxes, sales taxes, and/or other direct taxes.

Under open borders, labor can migrate to places where it can be most productively employed. That results in greater innovation because people can move to places where their skills and talents can be put to efficient uses. Greater high-tech innovation would happen if more high-skilled immigrants were able to move to the US, resulting in the creation of more Googles (Google was co-founded by a Russian, Sergey Brin). Many immigrants create their own businesses which heavily expand work opportunities for local communities and facilitate the movement of innovations to the market. All of these immigrants will allow an open border policy to lessen tensions and create peace between countries  as countries recognize that hostilities will negate the trade and economic benefits both countries receive from immigration. At last, open borders would boost world GDP by 50-150%.

Thus, I urge Congress and President Obama to establish open borders and realize that the undeniable benefits of immigration outweigh any harmful effects of illegal and legal immigration. 

Environment v. $$$$ Round 2: The Keystone XL Pipeline

The expansion of the Keystone Pipeline system that runs from Alberta, Canada to Oklahoma has been a controversial topic in the U.S. since its completion in 2010. Obama has opposed it multiple times especially its job projections. But lets look at the environmental concerns that many critiques are worried about.

1. Crude Oil from Albert has been reported to leave a bigger carbon footprint than conventional oil. The Time article states that to get usable crude from oil sands requires extra energy and in the process leaves a 10-15% larger carbon footprint.

The article also reports that "massive open pit mines" are required to extract the oil, destroying forests and the local environment. These damages take years to recover from and leaves the area in a state of disarray after there is nothing left to profit from and all the oil has been extracted.

2. The pipeline could pose a threat to the Ogallala Aquifer,one of the world's largest underground sources of fresh water, in Nebraska. In an independent study by Dr. John Stansbury, a Proffesor of Environmental and Water Resources Engineering at the University of Nebraska, a conclusion was made that in reality a major spill would cause far greater damage than in a "worst case scenario" predicted by TransCanada. A spill of tar sands oil is extremely difficult to clean up because the oil separates into two components. The lighter part dissolves into the water and floats downstream. The second heavier portion sinks to the bottom, making it hard to recover. Stansbury references Canadian company Enbridge's Kalamazoo Spill in 2010. It had contaminated more than 40 miles of the river and even now hasn't been completely cleaned up.

TransCanada has already had 14 leaks in their existing Kestone pipeline, the biggest leak being 400 barrels. Can we really trust a company that has had 14 leaks already and still looks to expand?

Besides the environment factor, the Keystone XL pipeline could generate $100 billion in profits for the Koch brothers. They have also given up to $50 million to Congressional members who have supported legislation for the pipeline. Should we really continue to support people that are known to look the other way on the climate issue? Is a few thousand jobs worth the potential disaster that a spill will create?

Chris Matthews says, "It's going  to happen. It will happen. It'll happen either this year or next year or after ... because the country wants jobs, and energy is always a primary concern of the American people." If the American people care more about jobs and energy and making money then the environmental issue will just be thrown out the window. Can we get our priorities straight America?