fbpx

Author: Yaël Ossowski

All nontobacco nicotine is now subject to the same regulations as tobacco-sourced nicotine in the U.S.

All nontobacco nicotine is now subject to the same regulations as tobacco-sourced nicotine in the U.S.

It was both expected and unexpected. Everyone in the vaping industry knew that at some point the U.S. Congress and the Food and Drug Administration were going to decide on how to handle synthetic and nontobacco nicotine. It was generally believed that regulation would appear in an appropriations bill in September, meaning vaping advocates thought they had time to fundraise and prepare for a battle.

They did not. Instead, the language for changing the definition of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) to include all nicotine products was buried on page 1,861 of the 2,741-page omnibus spending bill that was signed by President Joe Biden in March. How the rider found its way into the omnibus has caught the ire of many in the industry who say major tobacco companies are seizing the vaping industry away from the small business owners who got it started.

Senator Richard Burr was allegedly approached by R.J. Reynolds and Juul Labs representatives about getting the synthetic nicotine rider in the omnibus that at the time was winding its way through Congress. Burr joined forces with fellow senators Dick Durbin and Patty Murray and Representative Frank Pallone to get the nontobacco nicotine language into the omnibus, according to two Senate sources familiar with the discussions, as reported by Bloomberg Law.

Read the full article here

The Devastating Impact of the FDA’s Proposed Menthol & Flavored Cigarette Ban

The FDA’s announcement to ban the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars has been roundly condemned from all sides of the political spectrum, and is opposed by groups as diverse as American Council on Civil Liberties (ACLU), Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, the National Black Justice Coalition, Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, and Heritage Action for America.

Americans for Tax Reform convened a virtual seminar on the impact of this proposed ban with policy & law enforcement experts, covering the science and evidence (or lack thereof) underpinning the ban, the disastrous implications for law enforcement and vulnerable minority populations, the consequences of a thriving black market, and alternative, proven methods of tobacco harm reduction the FDA should be enacting instead of prohibition.

Chaiwut Thanakamanusorn is right: Thailand can save lives and promote innovation by legalizing nicotine alternatives

Bangkok, TH – As Thailand considers revising its ban on harm reducing nicotine delivery products, a global consumer advocacy group is praising the actions of Digital Economy and Society Minister Chaiwut Thanakamanusorn, who has recognized the importance of harm reduction in saving the lives of smokers who want to quit.

“The growing body of evidence from countries around the world points to a steep decrease in smoking rates once we allow harm reducing nicotine alternatives such as vaping products, snus, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco products,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center. “The smoking rate in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom are already at historical lows.

“Considering that over 50,000 Thai die each year due to smoking, amending the current bans and restrictions on these alternative nicotine products would mean lives would be saved almost immediately.

“In that, we praise the comments and recent actions of Digital Economy and Society Minister, Chaiwut Thanakamanusorn, who has been willing to hear the evidence on the scientific and health evidence in favor of vaping and nicotine alternatives and has made the case for how innovation in harm reduction can help save lives,” said Ossowski.

“In addition, the National Tobacco Products Control Committee’s ban on vaping imports has paved the way for a dangerous illicit market, meaning that ordinary Thai citizens who gain access to these life-saving products are not only at risk of significant fines by authorities, but also face more health risks related to illicit products that are not inspected and regulated by state agencies. Added to that, the government is losing out on potentially millions in tax revenue that could be used to fund healthcare, education, and vital social projects.

“If Thailand were to embrace innovation and endorse a strategy of harm reduction, they would not only be saving potentially millions of lives, but the country would also create a new wave of entrepreneurial investment and drive that would surely lead to an economic boom,” concluded Ossowski.

PLAN DE TRUDEAU POUR LE LOGEMENT GRIGNOTER AU LIEU DE MORDRE

Pour ceux et celles qui souhaitent un meilleur avenir, être propriétaire d’une maison a toujours été un but principal à atteindre, surtout pour la génération des millénariaux.

Mais quand on regarde les prix des maisons qui gonflent, la concurrence massive dans l’achat des maisons et l’inflation qui gruge de plus en plus notre pouvoir d’achat, ce souhait n’est plus qu’un rêve.

Nous étions très contents de voir que le logement figure au centre du budget du premier ministre libéral Justin Trudeau. Mais au lieu d’avancer de vraies réformes afin de donner à notre génération les meilleurs moyens de devenir propriétaire, nous ne voyons que des actions symboliques. 

Mettre fin à l’investissement étranger, taxer les logements vacants et accorder encore plus de crédits d’impôt à ceux qui achètent leur première maison pourrait faire plaisir à plusieurs, mais ne permet pas de livrer ce que tous les économistes sérieux nous recommandent : construire plus de maisons.

Il y a assez d’argent dans le système (encore plus avec l’inflation), mais il n’y a pas assez de construction de nouvelles maisons et de condos. L’offre est limitée, la demande est en croissance.

Or, le problème au Canada n’est pas la demande pour les propriétés résidentielles. C’est l’offre. Il n’y en a pas assez pour notre population grandissante.

Au mois de février, le prix moyen d’une maison au Québec a augmenté à 474 941 $, une hausse de 18,3 % comparée à 2021. Le prix moyen des maisons vendues à Montréal est 18 % plus élevé et 12 % à Québec.

À Montréal, le prix moyen d’un appartement quatre et demie est de 1982 $, ce qui nécessite un salaire annuel de 89 000 $, tandis que le salaire moyen (avant impôt) ne représente que 56 220 $. 

Comme plusieurs autres l’ont reconnu, Montréal fait bonne figure, mais nous avons encore du travail à faire.

Au niveau fédéral, Ottawa aide les gens à épargner, mais ses politiques ne sont pas axées sur l’augmentation de l’offre de logements. Le gouvernement fédéral cherche à créer un nouveau compte d’épargne libre d’impôt pour l’achat d’une première maison, qui combine les aspects fiscaux d’un CELI et d’un REER, permettant aux Canadiens de mettre plus de 40 000 $ dans leur compte, de déduire l’épargne de leur revenu et de la retirer pour acheter une maison sans aucune obligation de remboursement.

Ils prévoient également doubler le crédit pour l’achat d’une première maison, qui passera de 5000 à 10 000 $. Bien que ces deux politiques améliorent l’épargne des acheteurs, si elles ne s’attaquent pas au problème de l’insuffisance chronique de l’offre, elles ne feront rien pour rendre les logements plus abordables. Au mieux, ces politiques aideront ceux qui cherchent activement à franchir la ligne d’arrivée, mais laisseront le marché immobilier inchangé.

D’autres politiques mises de l’avant par Ottawa, comme l’interdiction des offres à l’aveugle, ne font rien pour augmenter l’offre. William Strange, professeur d’analyse économique à l’Université de Toronto, explique qu’une interdiction des offres à l’aveugle ne réduirait pas les prix de manière significative et « qu’il n’y a aucune preuve économique que cela est important ». Les guerres d’offres sont un symptôme d’un marché de vendeurs extrême, et non la cause.

Le zonage d’exclusion est une politique qui vise à limiter le nombre de logements pouvant être construits sur une même propriété. Ces règles interdisent souvent les logements multifamiliaux ou fixent des exigences en matière de taille minimale des terrains. Ces restrictions finissent par limiter le nombre de logements disponibles dans une ville. 

Une interdiction de ce zonage donnerait aux propriétaires plus de liberté pour construire différents types de logements et augmenterait le parc immobilier. En mettant fin au zonage d’exclusion, les grands centres urbains comme Montréal pourraient immédiatement permettre la construction d’un plus grand nombre de duplex et de petits appartements. 

C’est exactement ce qui se fait à l’étranger pour lutter contre la hausse des prix. 

Par exemple, l’Oregon a récemment adopté une loi qui abolit le zonage unifamilial pour toutes les communautés de plus de 10 000 habitants. Les propriétaires pourront ainsi construire différents types de logements, s’ils le souhaitent, ce qui augmentera considérablement l’offre de logements.

La Nouvelle-Zélande a entamé le processus de restructuration de ses lois de zonage dans le but d’augmenter considérablement l’offre et d’exercer une pression à la baisse sur les prix. Le Brookings Institute, situé à Washington, a décrit l’approche de la Nouvelle-Zélande en matière de logement comme un modèle idéal à suivre pour les autres pays.

Il reste beaucoup à faire si nous souhaitons devenir un tel exemple à travers le monde. 

Les législateurs canadiens doivent suivre l’exemple de ceux de l’étranger, et même à Montréal, et faire de la réforme du zonage une priorité essentielle pour s’attaquer à la crise du logement. 

Si notre génération souhaite le même niveau de richesse que celle de nos parents, nous aurions besoin de vraies réformes au lieu des mesurettes qui ne s’attaquent qu’aux symptômes.

Originally published here

Washington Examiner

For the sake of the international order, we need Biden to sell more gas

If President Joe Biden wants to kneecap the Russian war machine and save global liberalism, the best thing he can do is start selling more gas. I don’t mean “I Did That” stickers Gorilla-glued to your gas pumps. I mean pure, American-fracked, and American-drilled natural gas shipped out from our terminals and pumped into European homes.

On his recent jaunt to Brussels, Biden stood alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and announced a joint task force to reduce EU reliance on Russian gas “as quickly as possible,” promising up to 15 billion cubic meters of American liquefied natural gas by the end of the year and up to 50 billion cubic meters per year by the end of the decade.

This plan, albeit one of necessity in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is bold, and Biden should be commended for it.

However, the plan is not without fault. In seeking to assuage his domestic political coalition, Biden also promised the plan would be “consistent with, not in conflict with” net-zero climate goals. That is true folly.

Europeans are already facing a reckoning due to their bowing to the greens. German nuclear energy, summarily shut down by former Chancellor Angela Merkel, may soon become a reality. The alleged Russian funding of anti-energy green groups in Europe, once just a trope of Texas congressmen on energy committees, is now getting fresh attention.

In 2014, then-NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engages actively with so-called non-governmental organizations, environmental organizations working against shale gas, obviously to maintain European dependence on imported Russia gas.”

Former Secretary of State and Russia critic Hillary Clinton allegedly admitted the same in a cable revealed by WikiLeaks in 2016. “We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort,” Clinton said.

These allegations occur in the same political context in which environmental organizations have amassed great influence in Germany, which still imports 55% of its natural gas, 50% of its coal, and 35% of its oil from Russia.

Greenpeace has grown to be one of Germany’s most powerful lobby organizations, counting on close to 700,000 members and a whopping budget of 80.3 million euros. A long-held aim of Greenpeace has been to eradicate nuclear power in Germany in favor of renewables. Today, just 13% of German electricity is supplied by nuclear energy, compared to nearly 25% a decade ago, while over 50% is reportedly from renewables such as wind, solar, and hydro.

Germany’s expensive renewables policy, known as energiewende, was acknowledged as a state failure in a pivotal article in Der Spiegel in 2019.

With this in mind, Biden must put on his blue-collar uniform to hawk American gas and energy in Europe, but without the environmental qualifiers.

By cutting red tape for energy exportation at home, bringing energy giants to the table abroad, and pushing the European authorities to scale up their production and terminal facilities, the U.S. can once again make a positive mark for European peace and freedom. This will save an entire generation of Europeans from Russian energy dependence, which should mean a lot more than a couple hundred wind farms.

Originally published here

americans for tax reform

Antitrust Crackdowns On Big Tech Won’t Help Consumers

In the heyday of the net-neutrality fight last decade, tech activists and companies warned of a doom scenario without it: Internet toll lanes, blocking of data and slower speeds.

If Washington didn’t reclassify internet service providers as public utilities and give the Federal Communications Commission oversight, they argued, our entire online experience would change for the worse.

Now, five years after FCC chair Ajit Pai repealed net neutrality, online speeds are achieving record highs, more Americans are online than ever before, and the internet economy has become a dominant force in American society. It’s more open than ever.

Forever restless, however, many of these same activists have chucked aside the net-neutrality battle flag for a new political fight: using antitrust laws to break up and restrict innovative tech companies.

Rather than soothsaying a despotic online future, today’s activists and politicians lament the multiple “tech monopolies” and their apparent control of our lives and data.

The most severely targeted companies are Amazon, Meta Platforms, Google and Apple, which together provide a suite of products and services that employ tens of millions of Americans, are used by an overwhelming majority of internet users, and provide value to countless entrepreneurs and firms that rely on them.

Read the full article here

Big Tech’deki antitröst baskıları tüketicilere yardımcı olmayacak

Son on yılda ağ tarafsızlığı mücadelesinin en parlak döneminde, teknoloji aktivistleri ve işletmeler ağ tarafsızlığının olmadığı bir kıyamet senaryosu konusunda uyardılar: internet geçiş ücretleri, veri yasakları ve daha düşük hızlar.

Washington, ISP’leri kamu hizmetleri olarak yeniden sınıflandırmazsa ve Federal İletişim Komisyonu’na denetim verirse, tüm çevrimiçi deneyimimizin daha da kötüye gideceğini savundular.

Şimdi, FCC Başkanı Ajit Pai’nin net tarafsızlığı yürürlükten kaldırmasından beş yıl sonra, çevrimiçi hızlar rekor seviyelere ulaştı, her zamankinden daha fazla Amerikalı çevrimiçi durumda ve internet ekonomisi Amerikan toplumunda baskın bir güç haline geldi. Her zamankinden daha açık.

Bununla birlikte, her zaman huzursuz olan bu aktivistlerin çoğu, yeni bir siyasi mücadele için ağ tarafsızlığı savaş bayrağını bir kenara attı: yenilikçi teknoloji şirketlerini ezmek ve kısıtlamak için antitröst yasalarını kullanmak.

Günümüzün aktivistleri ve politikacıları, despotik bir çevrimiçi geleceğe başvurmak yerine, sayısız “teknoloji tekeli”nden ve onların yaşamlarımız ve verilerimiz üzerindeki bariz kontrollerinden yakınıyorlar.

En çok etkilenen şirketler, birlikte on milyonlarca Amerikalıyı istihdam eden, İnternet kullanıcılarının ezici bir çoğunluğu tarafından kullanılan ve sayısız girişimci ve şirkete değer katan bir dizi ürün ve hizmet sunan Amazon, Meta Platforms, Google ve Apple’dır. ayrıldıklarına odaklanılmıştır.

Bununla birlikte, bu şirketlerin her biri, Kongre tarafından bekleyen mevzuat veya işletmelerinin operasyonlarının daha sıkı düzenleyici incelemesi bekleyen başsavcılardan davalarla karşı karşıyadır.

Sosyal medya hesaplarını yasaklamak veya yasaklamak ya da kendi ürünlerini pazarlarında tercih etmek olsun, her şirketi kendi eylemleri ve politikaları nedeniyle eleştirmek için birçok neden olsa da, düzenleyicileri bu şirketlerin nasıl daha fazla kontrol sahibi olmaya davet etmek için bir adımdır. işletmek çok ileri gidiyor.

Tartışmalı bir hesabın Twitter veya Facebook tarafından askıya alınması, federal bir düzenleyicinin bir şirketin hangi hizmetleri sunması gerektiğine karar vermesi için tetikleyici olmamalıdır.

Gerçek şu ki, teknoloji sektörü inanılmaz derecede rekabetçi ve tüketici çıkarlarına hitap eden çeşitli farklı ürünler ve hizmetler sunuyor.

Facebook veya Twitter’dan sıkıldıysanız, kendi Mastodon sunucunuzu veya Matrix sohbetinizi barındırabilirsiniz. YouTube, istediğiniz içeriği barındırmıyorsa, Rumble veya Odyssey’e kolayca kaydolabilirsiniz. Amazon’a tahammül edemiyorsanız, Shopify, ürünlerini müşterilere listelemeleri için milyonlarca girişimciye bir satış noktası daha sağlar. Seçimler sonsuzdur.

Bu nedenle, bir tüketici savunucusu olarak, Fight for the Future gibi geniş bir koalisyonun yükselişini gördüğümde hayal kırıklığı yaşıyorum.

Bu koalisyon, Automattic (WordPress), Brave Browser, Protonmail ve Spotify dahil olmak üzere sevdiğim ve sık kullandığım birçok şirketi ve aynı zamanda uzun süredir yenilikçileri ve serbest girişimi kısıtlamaya çalışan birçok çıkar grubunu içeriyor.

Bu şirketlerin büyük teknoloji şirketleri tarafından tehdit edildiğini hissetmeleri beklenebilir, ancak hükümetten doğrudan veya dolaylı rakiplerini ayırmasını istemek için siyasi güçlerle güçlerini birleştirmeleri tüketicileri endişelendirmeli.

Kongre, teknolojinin gücünü dizginlemek için antitröst yasalarını değiştirmeyi başarırsa, bu tipik İnternet kullanıcısı ve tüketicisinin yararına olmayacaktır. Bunun yerine, birleşme ve satın almaları kısıtlamaktan çok daha fazlasını yapmak isteyen bir koalisyonun politika hedeflerini karşılayacaktır: belirli siyasi konuşmalar, düşmanca gördüğü hareketler ve tüketicilerin erişmek istemediği ürünler.

Antitröst baskısı, Facebook’taki tipik muhafazakarlara veya YouTube’daki liberal çevrecilere yardımcı olmaz. Hükümeti haber akışınızda ne olduğu veya e-postanızı kimin teslim ettiği konusunda çok daha fazla söz sahibi olmaya davet etmek, yalnızca tüketici seçimini sınırlayacak ve engelleyecektir.

Antitröst eylemi çok ileri giderse, bize mükemmel bir rekabet veya geniş seçenekler çağı getirmez. İnternet kullanıcılarını yenilikçi seçeneklerden mahrum bırakacak ve büyümelerine ve değer yaratmalarına izin veren girişimci güçleri engelleyecektir. Önceden uyarmalıyız.

Originally published here

Inside Sources Logo

Don’t Be Fooled by Those Who Want to Save You From Tech Monopolies

In the heyday of the net-neutrality fight last decade, tech activists and companies warned of a doom scenario without it: Internet toll lanes, blocking of data and slower speeds.

If Washington didn’t reclassify internet service providers as public utilities and give the Federal Communications Commission oversight, they argued, our entire online experience would change for the worse.

Now, five years after FCC chair Ajit Pai repealed net neutrality, online speeds are achieving record highs, more Americans are online than ever before, and the internet economy has become a dominant force in American society. It’s more open than ever.

Forever restless, however, many of these same activists have chucked aside the net-neutrality battle flag for a new political fight: using antitrust laws to break up and restrict innovative tech companies.

Rather than soothsaying a despotic online future, today’s activists and politicians lament the multiple “tech monopolies” and their apparent control of our lives and data.

The most severely targeted companies are Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple, which together provide a suite of products and services that employ tens of millions of Americans, are used by an overwhelming majority of internet users, and provide value to countless entrepreneurs and firms that rely on them.

That said, each of these companies is facing lawsuits by state attorneys general, pending legislation by Congress, or higher regulatory scrutiny in their businesses dealings.

While there is plenty of reason to criticize each individual company for its own actions and policies, whether that be banning or suspending social media accounts or preferring their own products on their marketplaces, inviting regulators to take more control of how these companies operate is a step too far.

Twitter or Facebook suspending a controversial account should not be the catalyst for any federal regulator to decide which services a firm should offer.

The fact remains that the tech sector is incredibly competitive and offers a host of different products and services that cater to consumers’ interests.

If you tire of Facebook or Twitter, you’re free to host your own Mastodon server or Matrix chat. If YouTube doesn’t host the content you like, you can easily sign up on Rumble or Odysee. And if you just cannot stand Amazon, Shopify is empowering millions of entrepreneurs with another outlet to list their products for clients. The choices are endless.

As a consumer advocate, that’s why I’m disappointed when I see the rise of a broad coalition such as “Fight for the Future” lobbying for harsher antitrust enforcement on American innovation, and hosting various antitrust campaigns.

This coalition includes many companies I like and use often, including Automattic (WordPress), Brave Browser, Protonmail and Spotify, but also plenty of pressure groups that have long sought to curtail innovators and free enterprise.

That these companies feel threatened by large tech companies is expected, but for them to partner up with political forces to petition the government to carve up their direct or indirect competitors should be worrying to consumers.

If Congress succeeds in changing antitrust laws to curb tech power, it will not be to the benefit of the typical user and consumer online. Rather, it would fulfill the political goals of a coalition that seeks to curtail much more than mergers and acquisitions: certain political speech, movements they view as hostile and products to which they would rather consumers not have access.

An antitrust crackdown won’t help the typical conservative on Facebook or liberal environmentalist on YouTube. Inviting the government to have much more of a say in what is in your newsfeed or who delivers your email will only restrict and harm consumer choice.

If antitrust actions go too far, it wouldn’t deliver us an era of perfect competition or vast choices. It would deny internet consumers of innovative options and stall the entrepreneurial forces that have allowed them to grow and provide value. We should be forewarned.

Originally published here

genetic literacy project

What would a world without herbicides look like?

Pesticide shortages, increased labor costs, and transportation bottlenecks are raising the cost of food across the EU. With war roiling this season’s crop planting in Ukraine — often called the breadbasket of Europe — grain shortages are expected to add to the growing number of factors impacting food security.

Yet, looking past the short-term crisis, Purdue University agricultural economist Jayson Lusk remains optimistic. He believes that biotechnology and entrepreneurship can help mitigate climate change while limiting soil erosion and boosting soil health. Genetically modified plants can produce their own, safer pesticides, reducing insecticide application. Yields can also be increased using gene tinkering, reducing land use and carbon emissions.

Read the full article here

Hawaii: Eliminating vape flavors would cause more problems than it would solve

By Yaël Ossowski

When the state acts to protect our children, we trust it will do so with knowledge and responsibility. Considering the rise in availability of vaping products this last decade, it is understandable that the State Legislature has been called on to act.

But if Hawaii curbs the sale of flavored vaping products — intended for adult former smokers — this will not eradicate the problem of youth access. Rather, it may make it even worse.

Health committee chair Rep. Ryan Yamane admitted as much last week, stating “I don’t want our youth who are electronic savvy to get access to unknown supplies or, who knows, black-market cartridges laced with dangerous substances through the internet where we don’t know where it’s coming from.”

What Yamane alludes to is the 2019 EVALI epidemic, when illicit cannabis vaping devices made their way into the hands of thousands of people across the country, causing death and serious lung injuries that spread panic around vaping products. There were 4 cases in Hawaii.

The CDC has concluded that virtually every case was linked to a supply of bootleg THC vape cartridges laced with Vitamin E Acetate. While these products are far removed from the vaping devices found in convenience stores and vape shops, even though activists have attempted to connect them, the EVALI crisis demonstrates the ills associated with unregulated black market products.

Massachusetts enacted a ban on flavored vaping products in 2019 and the results should raise caution. Since the ban, a massive influx of smuggled tobacco and vape products has resulted in a thriving black market, siphoning tax revenue for the state, criminalizing adult consumers trying to make the healthier choice, and exposing kids to black market dealers who don’t ask for ID.

Making a product illegal will not necessarily make the demand for it go away, as the era of Prohibition taught us.

If Hawaii moves forward with a vaping flavor ban, they’ll not only endanger our kids, but they will also push adult consumers to switch back to smoking combustible tobacco, a disaster for public health. Over 1,400 Hawaiians lose their lives to smoking-related illnesses each year. As found in multiple studies and even Public Health England, vapers benefit from 95% less harm than cigarettes.

Fortunately, more than 7% of Hawaii’s adult population uses vaping products, accounting for over 100,000 Hawaiians who have switched to a better alternative, including our elderly. According to data from the Hawaii Journal of Medicine and Public Health, the largest demographic of Hawaiian vapers are actually over 65.

If those retirees have their smoking cession options taken away, it will not only nudge them back to smoking and put their health at risk, but it would cost Hawaii dearly. Smoking-related healthcare costs already cost Hawaiian taxpayers $141.7 million annually, not to mention the pain of long-term illnesses and deaths experienced by many families.

Our goal should be to expand people’s choices to quitting tobacco, not to limit them severely.

What’s more, similar bans to what is proposed here in Hawaii have actually been demonstrated to increase smoking rates among youth in jurisdictions like San Francisco. Data from the Journal of the American Medicine Association shows that the flavored vaping product ban caused increased smoking rates for youth aged 18 and younger.

If we are concerned about youth gaining access to vaping products, we need to ask why it is happening. Are retailers breaking the law and selling it to them? Are they asking older friends or family to acquire for them? Will adult users of these products still have less harmful alternatives to cigarettes if we outlaw them? These are important considerations.

Teenagers seek out risky behavior, whether it is drugs, alcohol, or vaping devices. Education and parental responsibility, however, would be much more effective than a sweeping ban that would boost a new black market and deprive responsible adults of products they have sought to improve their lives. This is the choice Hawaii will have to make.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN