International Policy Digest: How Manchin’s Tax Stitch-Up Could Put America Behind China in the Race for 5G

The myopic move for a book minimum tax aims to squeeze more taxes out of big corporations in the short term, at the expense of the long-term interests of American businesses, consumers, and even the government.

Published by International Policy Digest

With the endorsement of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin on several key provisions, the behemoth Build Back Better Act grows stronger. On tax, Manchin has given his sign-off for a 15 percent minimum ‘book’ tax on corporations. We do not yet have many details about how exactly that will work, but President Biden nonetheless claims that it will raise $313 billion over the course of the next decade.

This myopic move aims to squeeze more taxes out of big corporations in the short term, at the expense of the long-term interests of American businesses, consumers, and even the government. At this point, the U.S. government might as well issue a press release telling global telecom companies that it no longer cares about 5G and that they should take their technology and investment capital elsewhere.

There are plenty of reasons to avoid inflating corporation taxes to begin with. By making it clear that America is a hostile tax and regulatory environment where the IRS is out to get you for every penny it can, companies and investors are dissuaded from keeping their cash on American soil. That is especially true when it comes to emerging sectors such as the cutting edge of telecommunication technologies, where other countries around the world are clamoring to win the attention of the global giants. For America to be competitive, it must avoid shooting itself in the foot unprovoked.

In the case of 5G, the way the Build Back Better Act’s tax provisions are crafted is designed in such a way that it seems to single out those investing in 5G technology for particular punishment. This seems to be an unintended consequence, but it is possible it is motivated by a pernicious and ill-informed desire to punish big corporations for making too much profit during a difficult time for the world economy. Either way, the Act’s provisions are set to place a much higher burden on wireless spectrum investments.

Manchin argues that the provisions under scrutiny do not raise taxes but that instead, all he wants to do is “close the loopholes and collect the taxes that are owed to the Treasury and the [American] people.” In fact, Manchin’s idea of ‘closing loopholes’ involves constricting investment by significantly upping the tax burden placed on companies investing in 5G.

This problem is fundamental to the way this new tax provision operates. The ‘loophole’ it aims to close involves imposing a 15 percent tax on the ‘book income’ of larger corporations – that is, the income they report to investors via financial statements – as opposed to taxable income. Thanks to the way the governing of spectrum licenses – a key component of investment in 5G infrastructure – works, that will disproportionately hit wireless companies who are trying to build out broadband capabilities across the U.S. by affecting the deductions they can make. While America polices 5G investment harshly, China subsidizes it.

It is relatively clear why this is happening. In the midst of an economic crisis in which the cost of living is climbing at an alarming pace for millions of Americans, politicians like Manchin are keen to be seen taking a hard line on economic issues, especially when it comes to giant corporations making even more giant profits.

The problem is that this approach focuses more on virtue signalling than enacting policy solutions which will make a difference for working- and middle-class Americans who are struggling. The new book minimum tax will only dissuade investment, undermine America’s place in the 5G race and make Americans worse off in terms of both tax revenue and access to new technologies in the longer term, all without relieving any of the pressure on working people’s wallets during this difficult time.

Washington Examiner: ‘Jackpot justice’ and multimillion-dollar court verdicts threaten innovation

If you ran an energy drinks company, would you jump out of your seat to sell your products in a country where Red Bull once had to settle a $13 million case because its drink doesn’t actually “give you wings?” America badly needs tort reform.

If you ran an energy drinks company, would you jump out of your seat to sell your products in a country where Red Bull once had to settle a $13 million case because its drink doesn’t actually “give you wings?”

America badly needs tort reform.

Read the full article in the Washington Examiner

RealClear Policy: White House’s Omnishambles Tobacco Policy Gets Product Regulation Wrong

Cracking down on both vaping and smoking is short-sighted and dangerous.

Published by RealClear Policy

Russia just invaded another country and inflation is at a forty-year high, but the Biden administration has determined that the time is right for the federal government to declare war on smokers and vapers.

On the one hand, the White House is attacking smoking by harshly restricting the amount of nicotine tobacco companies can put in cigarettes. On the other, it is also ordering via the FDA that vaping giant Juul stops selling its electronic cigarettes. The justification for that move is the allegation that teenagers are susceptible to nicotine addiction through vaping.

If you had never heard of vaping before and you were told this news, you would be forgiven for thinking vaping is a type of smoking, and that more young people taking up e-cigarettes is fueling an epidemic of young smokers. In fact, the opposite is true.

E-cigarettes are 200 times less likely to cause cancer than smoking and 95% safer overall. Not only is vaping a healthier choice than smoking, but it is also the most effective tool ever discovered for helping people quit cigarettes. 74% of smokers who try to quit using e-cigarettes succeed. That makes it a much better quitting tool than nicotine patches, going cold turkey, and every other tested smoking cessation method. Millions of American vapers are former smokers.

Cracking down on both vaping and smoking is short-sighted and dangerous. They are not equivalent harms. The Biden administration is attacking both the disease and the cure. Banning Juul, one of the most popular vapes on the market, will no doubt force countless vapers back to smoking and potentially prevent millions of current and future smokers from making the switch to e-cigarettes.

Singling out Juul is an illegitimate move. It has little to do with sound health policy — it’s all about the optics. The Juul name is associated with vaping more than any other in the U.S. Banning Juul is a symbolic victory for the Biden administration. The agency is more concerned with virtue signaling and attacking big names than protecting American consumers from harm.

As it turns out, this approach might be unlawful, too. Less than 48 hours after the FDA’s announcement that Juul products would disappear from shelves, the e-cigarette maker successfully filed for a temporary hold in federal appeals court while it appeals the decision. Shamann Walton, a San Francisco regulator who pushed a local vape ban, justified the approach by saying: “If you cut off the head, that kills the body… of what’s harmful to our communities.” Walton unmasks the nanny-state agenda – Juul is under attack not because it did anything wrong or its products are uniquely dangerous, but because its brand represents vaping, which the FDA wants to eliminate altogether.

Attacking vaping to begin with is a flawed approach which reflects a much wider failure in the global tobacco policy debate, led by the World Health Organization (WHO) whose so-called ‘Tobacco Free Initiative’ spends most of its time handing out awards to politicians who have introduced taxes and bans to curb vaping, such as a former Indian health minister. That’s despite vaping being both tobacco-free and the best way out of a tobacco habit for millions.

Lumping smoking and vaping together shows up the fundamental flaws in taking a nanny-state approach to vices like tobacco and nicotine. If the Biden administration truly wanted to make Americans healthier, it would use the tried-and-tested method of informing, educating and providing access to quitting resources — including vapes. Instead, it resorts to pointing at things it does not like and trying to drown them in red tape.

It is impossible to regulate public health vices out of existence. The failed war on drugs has proved that. Even if cigarettes and e-cigarettes were banned tomorrow, there is little evidence to suggest there would be a large decrease in the number of smokers and vapers.

Instead, an enormous black market would pop up overnight. There is a black market for cigarettes already because current cigarette taxes already create a significant price difference between legal and illegal products, but if the White House continues down its current path, illicit trade could boom. People would be unable to buy their products from reputable, licensed vendors, and would instead have to trade on street corners, funnelling money into criminal gangs and no longer knowing what they are putting into their body.

If the government is concerned about teen addiction, the only solution is to properly enforce the law which already bans the sale of nicotine products to minors. By choosing instead to curb adults’ liberties, the Biden administration is betraying smokers, more than half of whom tried to quit in the last year.

Polling shows most smokers are unaware of the health benefits of switching from cigarettes to vapes, which is unsurprising given the volume of misinformation about vaping from the WHO and its fellow travelers, such as Michael Bloomberg. That’s where there is potential to make America healthier — by improving knowledge about and access to vaping, not restricting it.

The nanny-state mentality is a death spiral. Perhaps stoked by the Covid pandemic, politicians seem more certain than ever that it is their God-given duty to protect ordinary people from harmful products at all costs. There is no endpoint to that logic. The WHO believes that sugar should be taxed heavily and that women of childbearing age should not consume alcohol. 

Until we live in an ultra-sanitized society where we wear masks permanently and eat tasteless grey sludge, the nanny state beast will never be satisfied. Instead of indulging it, the Biden administration should treat smokers and vapers like the adults they are. By investing in education and resources rather than new regulations, the White House could help make America healthier without compromising on basic personal freedoms or growing the market for illegal products. 

Jason Reed is the spokesperson for Young Voices and a commentator on public health policy for a wide range of outlets. Follow him on Twitter @JasonReed624.

Townhall: Trial Lawyers Are Abusing The Tort System. Here’s Why That’s A Problem

The way lawyers are behaving in American courts poses a direct threat to the free market economy.

Published by Townhall

Lawyers are going beyond their brief. Too often, lawyers in courtrooms are determined to win at all costs – and that is dangerous for the rest of us.

The American economy is built on the free market and the value created by private enterprise. Companies and entrepreneurs alike must be free to trade and do business without falling victim to overzealous attacks from lawyers who are happy to bring worryingly large sections of the economy tumbling down, just so long as it leaves their client smelling of roses. The companies on the receiving end of attorney attacks are often innovative, productive and value-creating, providing vital products and services to millions of consumers. It is not the place of lawyers to bring that to a grinding halt without good reason.

The way lawyers are behaving in American courts poses a direct threat to the free market economy. When it comes to professional negligence or issues with product safety, it is important that businesses are held to account according to the law – but in a growing number of cases, trial lawyers are abusing the concept of consumer protection to hurriedly discredit whole swathes of the American economy, with little thought for the far-reaching consequences of that.

Attorneys are collecting millions of dollars every year by villainizing entire industries by following a carefully honed set of steps involving outside experts and marketing organizations. Media reporting on high-profile trials of interest to consumers can be manipulated. Convenient media narratives often paint the plaintiffs as ‘good’ and the accused as ‘bad’, resulting in a misleading perception of what went on.

As is so often the case, these problems stem from the system, not the individual actors. The way the American tort system works allows deceptive lawyers to exploit the law and spread misinformation. To prevent legal counsel from acting in bad faith, sensible tort reform is urgently needed. As well as better protecting American consumers, tort reform would prevent millions of dollars from going down the drain because of these harmful, time-wasting maneuvers.

It’s not just lawyers – marketing agencies have a role to play in this, too. Attorneys know that public opinion is all-important, and they have no qualms about openly manipulating it to suit their own ends. Plaintiffs’ lawyers do extremely well out of cherry-picking information, taking it out of context and exaggerating its important to the media, often forcing companies to fork out enormous settlements just to ease the media pressure.

The Wall Street Journal reports that “the system makes it easy for lawyers to file nearly identical complaints in rapid succession, with just a few paragraphs changed about each plaintiff, giving defendants little to go on to gauge the legitimacy of any given case.” In other words, the bar for plaintiff’s lawyers to meet in order to file a case is far too low, and they are able to weaponize the system to put undue pressure on the company they are suing, far beyond what the law intends.

Then, to hide how weak their case is and keep up the relentless attacks on industry in the public square, attorneys often hire marketing agencies to do their dirty work for them. According to X-Ante, a tort litigation tracker, TV commercials asking people to report alleged injury by Zantac, a heartburn medication, aired more than 45,000 times in the first quarter of 2021. That’s the same as airing every four minutes. The plaintiffs’ bar spent $7 million on that alone. That weights the scales of justice in a wildly unfair way by placing enormous undue pressure on the company to pay out.

The problem has become so serious that some companies are having to resort to creative new methods such as the so-called ‘Texas Two-Step’. When Johnson & Johnson suddenly found itself stuck with a whopping 38,000 pending lawsuits alleging the talc in its famous baby powder product had carcinogenic effects, the company had no choice but to take drastic measures.

J&J divided itself in half by slicing its consumer health business off into a separate company, moving all its legal liabilities along with it. That brought all tort cases relating to baby powder across the US to a halt, because they suddenly fell under the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, rather than civil courts. That gave the company a fighting chance – plus the opportunity to keep trading, rather than supermarket shelves abruptly containing a much smaller range of baby power products – which it may not otherwise have had.

Companies should not have to resort to such dramatic, costly measures to escape the harms of reckless lawyer behavior. It is high time we recognize the ways trial lawyers are abusing the tort system to make it more difficult for wrongly accused companies to defend themselves, at the expense of their customers and the free market. We urgently need sensible tort reform to continue protecting consumer rights while also putting an end to this systematic manipulation of the legal process.

Jason Reed is the spokesperson for Young Voices and a writer and broadcaster on politics and policy for a wide range of outlets. Follow him on Twitter @JasonReed624

IREF (France): Le Président Macron est vapoteur. Pourquoi n’en parle-t-il jamais?

Published in French by the Institute for Research in Economic and Fiscal Issues, a European think tank. English translation below.

President Macron vapes. Why does he never talk about it?

Published in French by the Institute for Research in Economic and Fiscal Issues, a European think tank. English translation below.

President Macron vapes. Why does he never talk about it?

Recently, a set of photographs emerged of President Macron at the Elysée. Perhaps surprisingly, he was not wearing a suit and tie as he generally does. Instead, he is wearing stubble and a hoodie. He looks like he has been working from home on a laptop, not serving as President of France. Some have speculated that he was trying to tap into the popularity of wartime leader, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who spoke to the US Congress earlier this year wearing a t-shirt.

Whatever the reason for his interesting choice of outfit, there was one detail in the photo which few noticed: President Macron was carrying a vape.

In itself, that ought not to be surprising. Vaping has been on the up in France, as in many countries around the world. It is the number one tool for quitting smoking, and electronic cigarettes are much healthier than their traditional tobacco counterparts – vaping is 95 per cent healthier than smoking overall, and around 200 times less likely to give you cancer.

Vaping is cheaper, too. A smoker who consumes a pack of twenty cigarettes each day can probably expect to spend around five thousand euros annually on the habit. Even those who only need five cigarettes per day are spending well over a thousand euros each year. Compared to those numbers, switching to vaping would represent a huge cost saving.

When you start vaping, the first major cost is the e-cigarettes device itself, which generally costs less than fifty euros, and a few extra euros to replace its coils every couple of weeks. The only other regenerative cost is for the e-liquid itself. Of course, there is a wide range of different prices, but most estimates suggest that vapers should expect to spend around two hundred euros each year on liquids to top up their device.

That is an extraordinary price difference. Even if a smoker only gets through five cigarettes each day, switching to vaping would be around 76 per cent cheaper overall. People around the world are already hearing lots of advice about how to cut down electricity consumption or fuel usage in order to save money while the prices of those things are high, but almost no one with a significant platform has been talking about how the millions of smokers across the globe can save money – and, of course, improve their health – through vaping.

When we have a cost of living crisis where countless families are already struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table, savings like this can be life-changing. Energy bills are already going through the roof, and the prices of essentials like food and clothes are skyrocketing because of inflation, the war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions and much more. Life is getting more expensive, so any opportunity to ease the strain on our wallets will be welcomed by many.

President Macron, it appears, has taken advantage of the benefits of vaping. Good for him. Why, then, does he continue to promote the nanny state brand of politics in which vaping is condemned? If the president accepts the benefits of vaping and the life-changing effects it could have for millions of French smokers, he should throw the government’s weight behind it.

It is a shame that, even as society organically begins to move away from cigarettes, many people who want to quit are unable to do so because they do not have access to the resources they need, such as e-cigarettes, or they do not know about their benefits. For example, did you know that heat-not-burn tobacco products are much safer than smoking cigarettes? In fact, the UK’s Committee on Toxicity found in 2017 that heated tobacco products emit up to 90 per cent fewer harmful compounds than cigarettes.

Similarly, polling shows that very few smokers know about the benefits of switching from smoking to vaping, because there is a huge amount of disinformation swirling around it. That is only possible because of unelected, unaccountable political groups such as the World Health Organisation, which insistently badmouths vaping through its ‘Tobacco Control Project’ (despite the fact that, ironically, vaping is tobacco-free).

The problem is that the president, on a fundamental level, does not subscribe to the idea of personal choice and individual liberty as fervently as he should. He will say he believes in those things, of course. But when confronted with the idea that the French people should truly be able to make lifestyle decisions like this for themselves, free from government interference of any kind, he recoils, as do almost all politicians. Relinquishing power over people’s lives is harder than it seems.

The current moment would be an excellent time for the president to put his foot down and stake his flag in vaping. Many French people, of course, will want to continue smoking, despite the heavier burden it carries for their bodies and their wallets. They will not mind his support for vaping because, crucially, it comes with freedom of choice.

Conversely, those who want to quit smoking – which is probably a large majority of France’s smokers – will be grateful for the chance to save money. Over the next few months – and sadly probably in the longer term, too – the inflationary and cost of living crisis is going to make life considerably more difficult for millions of French people. Saving money by switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes could be a lifeline for many.

Jason Reed is the UK Lead at Young Voices, which has recently launched a pro-liberty project in France. To find out more, email or visit

Nashua Telegraph (New Hampshire): Shortsighted Idea From the Green Lobby Would Worsen Deforestation

Published by the Nashua Telegraph (New Hampshire)

In recent months, much of the green lobby has been focussing its ire on palm oil. If it were up to the lobby, importing and using this common vegetable oil would be banned overnight. In fact, the European Union has already done something similar, and is working on a total palm oil import ban. Around the world, eco-socialists are declaring war on palm oil. But why?

Palm oil is one of those products whose importance is inversely proportional to the amount of attention it gets. You might not have heard of it, or know very little about it, but if it disappeared you would miss it. Palm oil is absolutely essential in keeping our shelves fully stocked with food and cosmetics. It is used to make everything from chocolate to deodorant.

Why, then, is the green lobby so keen to extricate it from American stores and households? As is so often the case, it is pushing a shortsighted government intervention that, in fact, would both hurt consumers and produce worse outcomes for the environment.

Much of the political left is determined to tie palm oil to deforestation. Its adherents declare with great confidence that palm oil is responsible for the chopping down of tropical rainforests. But this flies in the face of the facts.

Palm oil is by far the most land-efficient of all the vegetable oils. Others oils like sunflower, soybean, rapeseed and olive require between six and 10 times more land to produce the same amount of oil, meaning you have to chop down a lot more trees to get the same result. That also, of course, makes those other oils much more expensive than palm oil, which is particularly important during a global food price crisis.

Despite catering to more than a third of the world’s entire vegetable oil demand, palm oil  accounts for just 6 percent of the cultivated land used for vegetable oil production. The entire global palm oil industry is responsible for less than 4 percent of global deforestation and — according to Global Canopy, an environmental nongovernmental organization — palm oil supply chains are doing a much better job than companies in other sectors at preventing deforestation.

Even the World Wildlife Fund  agrees: The best thing we can do is support sustainable palm oil and avoid boycotts, since we know substitutions with other vegetable oils can lead to even further environmental and social harm.

If they cared about achieving results for nature and the planet, the green lobby would take a more nuanced stance, pushing for greater sustainability in palm oil production. Instead, believing that only governments and not markets can provide solutions to issues like this, the lobby insists on an outright ban without a thought to what comes next. Ninety percent of the palm oil imported to Europe is officially certified as sustainable, meaning it is not contributing to harmful deforestation — but that won’t stop the European Union slapping an ill-considered blanket ban on it.

If we are not careful, that same myopic thinking could take hold in the United States. Politicians who are active in this area are so wrapped up in their virtue-signaling — letting the world know how keen they are to save the planet — that they forget to think about whether the policies they are pushing would actually achieve that.

It’s not just among lawmakers, either — even in the private sector, there is an increasing volume of self-congratulatory stores and outlets boasting about not using palm oil in their products, despite the fact that switching away from palm oil results in their products being both more costly and more damaging to the environment.

The virtue-signaling on this issue is so blatant that Iceland, a United Kingdom supermarket chain, even went so far as to make a TV commercial on the issue, in case anyone missed how environmentally conscious they are. In 2018, to mark their announcement that they were removing palm oil from their own-brand products, Iceland teamed up with Greenpeace to make a  short film portraying them as literally saving orangutans’ lives through their sacrifice. The ad was then banned from British screens for being too political.

Ironically, earlier this year, Iceland was forced to  row back on its promise and start using palm oil again because the fallout from the war in Ukraine made other products like sunflower oil too expensive for a budget supermarket chain to afford. Still, Iceland boss Richard Walker once bizarrely boasted about being a hypocrite on green issues during an interview with the Guardian, so the U-turn may not have been so difficult for him after all.

When it comes to deforestation, palm oil is the solution, not the problem. Until left-leaning virtue-signalers take the time to look at the data, their war on palm oil risks making deforestation much worse for no good reason.

International Policy Digest: Regulatory Sandboxes: How a British Invention is Fueling Tech Innovation Globally

Published by the International Policy Digest

By its nature, government is always playing catch-up. First, a bold innovator pioneers some new technology. Then, some time later, the state appears, chasing after it with a huge butterfly net called ‘regulation.’

The movement of government is slow and haphazard. It often restricts or disincentivizes the development of new products and services which could enhance our quality of life in various ways, for fear of the hand of the state emerging to crack down on pioneering technologies because of often exaggerated fears about safety, or health risks, or monopolies, or any number of other things.

Enter regulatory sandboxes. First developed by the UK’s ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) for use in the world of British fintech, a regulatory sandbox is a cordoned-off space in which eligible companies are allowed to do business free from red tape. Certain key rules like consumer protection stay in place but other than that, entrepreneurs and business leaders are given a safe, controlled environment in which to indulge in uninterrupted innovation and growth.

The idea may have germinated in the niche, technical regulation of the British financial services industry, but it quickly caught on. Around the world – and in the U.S. in particular – lawmakers at both the state and federal level have spent so many decades cushioning every industry within reach in endless red tape that now, rather than tinkering with the law and trying to reform regulation, often the best way to unleash the free market is to sidestep regulations altogether by using regulatory sandboxes.

Across the U.S., the regulatory sandbox movement is in full swing. Since 2018, around a dozen states have implemented some kind of regulatory sandbox for a wide range of industries including tech, finance, transport, and energy. More are on the way, such as this one in Pennsylvania. The idea is gaining traction around the world, too, with lawmakers in countries including RwandaCzechiaZimbabwe, and Serbia throwing their weight behind various forms of regulatory sandbox.

It’s a matter of if, not when, the remainder of America’s politicians cotton on to the limitless potential of regulatory sandboxes to transform our lives. It may have been a British invention to begin with, but it could yet make an enormous difference to American politics and industry by giving innovators breathing space to try out their potentially world-changing ideas and making clear to entrepreneurs and investors from across the globe that the U.S. is the right place for them to focus their attention.

Regulatory sandboxes are one of the most important fronts in the ongoing battle for innovation and the free market. In a world of nanny statism, excessive regulation, mission creep, and government overreach, regulatory sandboxes represent a glint of light, a hint of hope that the future might yet include a fresh embracing of the wonders innovation can bring.

Have you ever tried to read a large quantity of the law? Most new policies or regulatory developments are so complicated you have to set aside several hours to break down the dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of inscrutable writings, and even then, without extensive specialist education and experience, it will be very difficult to understand, especially when it comes to complicated areas of regulation like those developing industries – tech, finance, and so on.

Regulatory sandboxes flip the market-state dynamic completely on its head. No more does the government need to hurriedly and haphazardly respond to innovations after they happen and end up slapping them down retrospectively with overregulation. Instead, thanks to regulatory sandboxes, government actors can rest assured in the knowledge that consumers are protected, but no one is missing out on cheaper or better products or services because of them.

Lawmakers across the U.S. have nothing to lose by working towards more regulatory sandboxes. They can achieve astounding results with relatively little cost by creating these hubs for innovation, investment, and progress, allowing companies to sign up as the UK did back in 2014 and simply sitting back and letting the free market do the rest of the work. What are we waiting for?

American Spectator: Menthol Cigarette Ban Plan Will Fuel Illicit Tobacco Trade

Published by the American Spectator

The FDA has taken it upon itself to liberate America’s youth from the blight of cigarette smoking. As has sadly become typical of its activities, the regulator has reached for the 20th-century policy playbook of taxes and bans. According to its recently published plans, the FDA intends to ban menthol cigarettes altogether.

The proposed menthol cigarette ban is a textbook case of nanny statism. When questioned on it, proponents of bans like these tend to quote alarming statistics about cancer cases and deaths among smokers and regale with tales of blackened lungs, heart failure, and other health disasters. But that response answers a question no one asked.

Americans already know that smoking is unhealthy. It is patronizing and infantilizing for a regulator to suggest otherwise. We no longer live in the 1950s, when doctors would routinely prescribe cigarettes as a remedy for the common cold. Still, while educating the public on matters of public health might well be a laudable course of action, that is not what the FDA is proposing.

The FDA’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach of slapping bans on things it does not like will only make the situation worse.

There is a disconnect between the issue the regulator has identified and its proposed solution. Sure, menthol cigarettes are harmful. No one is denying that. But will a ban actually achieve the desired goal of reducing consumption? On a generational level, Western society is weaning itself off cigarettes independently. In 2018, 61.7 percent of adult smokers quit.

A much better, more positive course of action — which would not criminalize millions of Americans in the process of trying to safeguard their health — would be to invest in and pave the way for innovation and investment in stop-smoking technologies such as electronic cigarettes. But the FDA view is too simplistic for that. It does not extend beyond thinking, “Menthol cigarettes cause harm; therefore, we should ban them.” Worryingly little thought is given to actually achieving the desired outcome of improving public health.

In fact, all the evidence suggests that bans of this kind simply do not work. Liquor prohibition came to an end almost a century ago for that reason. Banning the legal purchase of menthol cigarettes will only fuel illicit tobacco trade. It will be a boon for the black market, funneling money into the pockets of criminal gangs and leaving consumers vulnerable to the whims of unlicensed, unregulated, unaccountable vendors.

When cigarettes become inaccessible (or unaffordable, because of wildly inflated tobacco taxes), illegal trade grows. The research, such as a study conducted by Pepperdine University on this subject, consistently shows that banning consumer products only drives those consumers towards the illegal market.

A two-pronged approach is needed: stronger enforcement against the illegal tobacco trade alongside the creation of a safe, regulated environment for consumers to buy the products they want. The FDA’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach of slapping bans on things it does not like will only make the situation worse for all parties.

Perhaps worst of all, bans of this kind simply do not succeed in preventing activities regulators want to forbid. Banning menthol cigarette sales will not necessarily stop people from smoking menthol cigarettes. In 2020, the South African government tried to ban alcohol, leading to supermarkets selling yeast, sugar, and pineapples as home-brewing kits. If people want to drink or smoke, they will find a way to do so, even when the government objects.

When smokers want to quit, they must have access to the education and resources they need in order to do so. But according to data from the CDC, more than three in 10 smokers have no interest in giving it up. The FDA’s obvious yearning for a smoke-free America is a fantasy for the foreseeable future. Mission creep is rampant — it is not the FDA’s job to lean into nanny statism and make lifestyle choices on behalf of the average American. Many people want to smoke, and we have no right to tell them not to.

In the post-COVID era, there is a real and imminent risk of politicians and regulators getting hooked on the high of centralizing control on people’s lives. Mask mandates, social distancing, and stay-at-home orders have led to a crop of lawmakers and busybodies who can’t give up the habit of nanny statism. The FDA’s proposed ban on menthol cigarettes, like most nanny-state policies, will do much more harm than good, and it must not go ahead, however attractive it might be to those who run America.

Jason Reed is the spokesperson at Young Voices and a policy analyst and political commentator for a wide range of outlets. Follow him on Twitter @JasonReed624.

Yahoo News: Bail reform is good for law and order

This article was published on Yahoo News.

It was also featured by other outlets including the Charleston Mail-Gazette (West Virginia), the Deming Headlight (New Mexico), the Nashua Telegraph (New Hampshire) and the Jacksonville Journal-Courier (Illinois).

Fearing for their political lives, many elected officials in New York are hurriedly backing down from previous commitments on bail reform. The measures had rolled back the use of cash bail, except for some violent crimes and other exceptional circumstances. That meant an end to jailing people before their trial for months or years, for the crime of being unable to pay their bail.

Now, it seems cash bail is back on the menu, despite all the evidence suggesting that will be a bad thing for law and order.

A new study, The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention Revisited, examined data from 1.5 million people booked into jail in Kentucky between 2009 and 2018 to investigate whether cash bail is as effective and vital as its supporters claim. The researchers’ findings were striking. Not only is the widespread use of cash bail ineffectual but in fact counterproductive. It makes communities less safe.

It might be counter-intuitive, but avoiding putting people behind bars until we have no other choice makes the public safer. In other words, jailing defendants before they have been found guilty of any crime makes them more likely to reoffend and less likely to turn up for their trial. It therefore makes bail less effective and undermines law and order more broadly.

Think of it this way. If you were falsely accused of a crime, you would have the constitutional right as an American to a fair trial — a right you would be very grateful for, no doubt. But how would your attitude to the justice system change if you were then detained for months — or in some cases even years — before your trial has begun? You would have been put behind bars practically indefinitely without even the chance to voice your defense before a jury of your peers.

Would finding yourself in that predicament inspire confidence in the justice system? Would it make you believe in its sincere desire to rehabilitate criminals and prioritize public safety above all else? Of course not. Unsurprisingly, foregoing the presumption of innocence and instead incarcerating people who have been found guilty of no crime stokes resentment in American institutions and inevitably leads to worse outcomes for everyone.

As if that were not enough, the cash bail system also represents disastrously inefficient government spending. According to data from the Prison Policy Initiative, on any given day, a whopping 400,000 people presumed innocent are held in pretrial jails across the country. They make up more than two-thirds of jail populations. That means your tax dollars are being spent incarcerating thousands upon thousands of people who have no need to be behind bars and have not been found guilty of any crime.

The heart of the problem is that the cash bail system decides who to release and who to detain based on wealth, rather than danger to the community. Too often, those charged with non-violent offenses are incarcerated entirely unnecessarily, at great cost to them and the taxpayer. Bail reform does not mean allowing violent, dangerous offenders to walk free, but rather limiting the use of pretrial detention to cases when it is truly merited.

Despite the fears of New York officials, there is no data whatsoever to suggest a link between bail reform and the recent spike in crime. But the populace is always right, and since politicians prioritize self-preservation above almost everything else, they seem worryingly willing to give in to the counter-factual narrative and back down on bail reform.

That is a bad thing for the American justice system and for taxpayers’ wallets. It means tax dollars are used less effectively and it means we are less safe. For all our sakes, politicians must put facts above feelings and consign the unnecessary overuse of cash bail to the history books.

Free The People: A Flavored Tobacco Ban in Colorado Would Harm Public Health and the Rule Of Law

This article was published by Free The People.

Lawmakers are considering a bill which would prohibit flavored tobacco and nicotine products. While it is no doubt well-intentioned, passing the bill into law would be a grave mistake. A flavored tobacco ban is a very poor way to confront addiction. It would put businesses and jobs at risk, lower tax revenues, and pose a danger to communities through illicit markets.

The economic costs of a ban alone would be substantial. It would hit the more than 5,000 licensed Colorado business which sell tobacco products to adults aged 21 and older. In the last decade, those businesses sold around $4.6 billion in flavored tobacco products in entirely legitimate transactions which would be criminalized under the new legislation.

What’s more, the ban would hit everyone’s wallets, not just those who trade in tobacco. A ban on flavored products would take a huge chunk out of the annual $406.3 million of tobacco excise and sales tax revenue in Colorado. By banning the sales of flavored tobacco products including menthol cigarettes to adults, approximately $1.2 billion in revenue would be at risk over the next ten years.

Either the state finds itself with considerably less money to spend overnight or, worse, politicians decide to increase other taxes on hardworking Colorado residents to make up the shortfall. In either scenario, it is likely that programs which rely on government funding such as housing, local governments, K-12 education, and even tobacco prevention programs would lose out, since they depend specifically on revenues from the cigarette tax.

Alongside the economic impact, a short-sighted move to ban flavored tobacco products would bring additional costs for Colorado communities by stoking illicit trade. Removing these products from the legal market would create a whole new market operating outside of the law, meaning cashflow moves from licensed businesses to criminal networks, which then profit from tobacco smuggling.

Based on what has happened in the past in similar cases, there is no doubt about how this would play out—prohibiting entire sections of the consumer market always leads to a boom in the black market. That would heap additional pressure onto already stressed law enforcement organizations like the State Police, County Sheriffs, and City and Town Correctional Departments, as well as courts and correctional facilities.

A ban would also put ordinary consumers of tobacco in unnecessary danger by forcing them to resort to unlicensed, unregulated, unaccountable vendors to buy their tobacco products. They will no longer be confident that the products they consume are safe and tested.

Perhaps most damningly of all, going ahead with the ban would be undemocratic. Voters are staunchly opposed to it. The data suggests they overwhelmingly view these kinds of laws as a new form of prohibition and resent them for that reason. 77 percent of all voters say being aged 21 or older means you, not the government, get to make choices for yourself, including what legal products to buy. People want to be treated as adults.

Protecting children from tobacco and nicotine addiction is a laudable aim, but a blanket ban would bring with it too much collateral damage. Instead, Colorado should focus its attention on harm reduction solutions. Cigarette sales to under-21s are already illegal. The strategy for confronting youth tobacco use should center around enforcing the law as it stands.

There is plenty more that can be done to help without fueling other issues, too. For instance, investment in education and cessation support would go much further towards safeguarding public health than a ban. Marketing restrictions and licensing rules, for instance, should be tightened to bring regulation of smokeless e-vapor products in line with those for cigarettes and traditional tobacco products.

The proposed ban, then, fails on all fronts. It would be bad for criminal justice, bad for public health, and voters do not want it. There are ample unexplored avenues to help address the underage use of tobacco without prohibiting adult choices. We are all better off exploring those long before considering ineffective and harmful blanket bans.