Here’s the current legal situation. As Megan McArdle has detailed at Bloomberg Businessweek, the rapidly growing $1.5 billion-dollar industry is about collide with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Since experts are not yet convinced that there are significant health risks to “smoking” e-cigarettes (or “vaping,” as they say), the campaign against the free public enjoyment of the devices has fallen back on a trinity of moralism, fearmongering and progressivism.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), for instance, is currently co-sponsoring the Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act. “We cannot risk undoing decades of progress in reducing youth smoking by allowing e-cigarette makers to target our kids,” she insists.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel deployed the same rhetoric in his own successful anti-e-cig campaign. “Having worked with the FDA,” he declared, “having encouraged them to take steps to protect individuals and children, they are usually an agency that leads from behind. And when it comes to the city of Chicago, when it comes to the people of the city of Chicago, when it comes to the children of the city of Chicago, I do not believe we should wait.”

Michael Bloomberg himself, of course, surprised no one by being the first mayor of a major American city to crack down on vaping. Sure enough, as the New York Post reported, “city Health Commissioner Tom Farley said allowing electronic cigs in public places would make smoking socially acceptable again among youths and undermine gains in curbing tobacco use. He said they look like regular cigarettes, mimic the action of smoking, and are popular with youths.”

And so, as McArdle explains, one of “the FDA’s most difficult decisions will be determining whether e-cigarettes will be a gateway product, encouraging young smokers to develop a nicotine habit that might lead to tobacco use. After all, many of the things that make e-cigarettes attractive to smokers make them even more attractive to minors.”

L.A. next front in ‘vape’ fight

A municipal vaping ban is now on the agenda for Los Angeles. A proposed ordinance to treat e-cigs like regular cigarettes is now headed to the L.A. City Council. “Lawmakers,” recounts the Los Angeles Times, “acted after Jonathan Fielding, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said e-cigarettes threaten to make smoking socially acceptable after years of advocacy to discourage the habit. Young people who get hooked on the nicotine in e-cigarettes may then turn to tobacco use, he said.”

Can anything stop the regulation’s momentum? It’s possible that an appeal to logic and reason could prevail. At least one former surgeon general, Dr. Richard Carmona, has written forcefully against the ban, arguing that it would actually hurt anti-smoking efforts. In fact, he attributes his decision to join the board of NJOY, “the leading independent e-cigarette company,” because its “ambitions” are “to make obsolete the tobacco cigarette entirely.”

On the other hand, California’s social mores might do more to complicate life for anti-vape regulators. In the Los Angeles metro area, for instance, the public use of e-cigarettes is particularly appealing for a complex set of reasons. Take the city’s outdoor culture, permissive parenting, soft school discipline and widespread recreational marijuana use. Add tight municipal bans on cigarette smoking, and you’ve got all the makings of some broad opposition to e-cigarette restrictions.

At first blush, it would seem that the anti-vape crowd could rally public support based on reports that L.A. kids are using vapes to get high in class. But it’s one thing to prohibit, say, drinking alcohol at school — and another thing to impose such strictures on the general public. Plenty of people in Los Angeles still like to smoke, and not in the privacy of their own homes, either. It’s not difficult to find bars in town that have found careful, quiet ways around the city’s tough regulations.

Still, support for cigarette smoking in public spaces is probably not as strong as L.A.’s tacit support for discreet marijuana smoking. In a city where even smokers respect those who don’t want secondhand smoke anywhere near them, vapes offer everyone what some locals might describe as a more chill vibe.

Lax on pot but tough on e-cigs? Unlikely

Using e-cigs to deliver a marijuana high takes that unofficial agreement a step further. Conduct yourself with a minimum of self-control, and nobody in Los Angeles is apt to turn you in for leaving the house under the influence of pot. The huge number of “medical” dispensaries in the city — just a fraction of local pot suppliers — is a stunning testament to the strength of market demand for the drug. It’s not outlandish to conclude that in L.A., the pot industry and the e-cig industry are poised for a much closer partnership than ever had time to develop in, say, Chicago or New York. That means it’s harder in Los Angeles to fully associate e-cigs with regular cigarettes. In a perhaps unexpected way, the city’s fairly lax pot regime probably makes it harder to mobilize public compliance with e-cig bans in the spirit of “saving the children.”

That sets up the L.A. City Council with two hurdles. Not only does the anti-vaping ordinance have to pass in the first place; it then must be enforced. Of course, a cynic might say that today’s bad governance puts a great deal of energy into passing flavor-of-the-month legislation, but much less energy into dutifully executing the minute and detailed rules. California cities like Los Angeles are primed for widespread public disobedience of anti-vaping laws. L.A.’s experience with e-cigarettes may well speak to the larger issue of how long American politicians can build support around regulations that lack strong support from experts and citizens alike.

“Mayor Michael Bloomberg today took aim at the city’s rising pension and health costs, calling what he dubbed the ‘labor-electoral complex’ the most pressing threat to New York in the final major speech as mayor. …

“’Right now our country appears to be in the early stages of a growing fiscal crisis that, if nothing is done, will extract a terrible toll on the next generation,’ said Mr. Bloomberg. ‘It is one of the biggest threats facing cities because it is forcing government into a fiscal straight jacket that severely limits its ability to provide an effective social safety net and to invest in the next generation.’

“‘The costs of today’s benefits cannot be sustained for another generation–not without inflicting real harm on our citizens, on our children and our grandchildren,’ he added.”

Jerry Brown has never been this honest

What a contrast with California’s governor, who is enjoying the bizarre speculation that he might derail Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. Brown has a reputation for candor. Yet he rarely talks candidly about who really runs the Golden State. The fact that union power is a big reason that poverty is at a 70-year high in California? Jer can’t be bothered to mention that, or even allude to it.

And while Brown did secure modest pension reforms in 2012, he didn’t do so while placing them in context — by explaining what was lost because of costly benefits. Bloomberg put the need for pension changes in context:

“Over the past 12 years, the mayor said, the city’s pension costs have soared from $1.5 billion to $8.2 billion – a nearly 500 percent increase – siphoning off $7 billion he argued could have been used to fund for more affordable housing, classrooms or tax cuts. And while many other cities require municipal employees to chip in for at least part of their health care costs, he said the city’s unions have remained frustratingly stubborn.

“’More and more mayors and governors in both political parties are asking across the country, which is the first real sign of a crack in the “labor-electoral complex” that has traditionally stymied reform,’ he said, dubbing a term aides said was a reference to President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address, in which the ex-president warned of the “military-industrial complex.'” …

“’We need them to look ahead and to address the needs of tomorrow instead of being prisoners to the labor contracts of yesteryear. Simply put, our pension and health care system must be modernized to be sustained,’” he added, vowing to continue to work on the issue after he leaves office.

“Mr. Bloomberg ended by urging Mr. de Blasio to follow in his recent footsteps and refuse any new labor contract that includes salary increases unless it comes with lower benefits payments–arguing that his successor will have unique leverage over the city’s unions.”

Mayor will be libertarian icon — albeit a deeply flawed one

Like just about every libertarian I know, I’m torn by Bloomberg. His nanny-state activism and his love of eminent domain are appalling.

Nevertheless, given his success as NYC mayor, his emphasis on the importance and primacy of the private sector in improving quality of life and his emphasis on government efficiency are going to pay dividends for believers in liberty for decades to come.

So it amounts to one final bon-bon that in his farewell speech, Bloomberg reminded Californians of what a truly blunt government executive sounds like — not a media-savvy simulacrum like Jerry Brown.

By John Seiler

It’s terrible that four people were killed in Boston last week. But for that should we ditch the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

That’s what New York Mayor-for-Life Michael Bloomberg insists:

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Actually, given the events of the last century — the Nazi and communist mass murders of tens of millions of people — we need our constitutional protections more than ever. Compared to those atrocities, the crimes of King George the III — taxing tea and stamps, etc. — were the misdemeanors of a pickpocket.

If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that governments are infinitely more dangerous than even the worst criminals. After all, it was just 20 years ago that the government itself murdered 70 people, including about 20 children and 20 blacks, in the Waco Inferno (shown in the pictures nearby).

More Bloomberg:

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11.”

Yes, and the main agent taking away our freedoms after 9/11 was the government itself, with the imposition of the unconstitutional USA “PATRIOT” Act, which was treason to our freedoms.  

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to.

But it was private cameras in Boston that helped finger the alleged perpetrators, not government cameras. And a private citizen located the second suspect.

“Clearly the  Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security.”

The last was a reference, according to the article, to the use of “magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.” Which shows how modern schools now are prisons.

And he was referring to his obsession with gun control. He wants to re-interpret our Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” to mean we can’t.

He also can say such things because he’s immensely wealthy, according to Forbes the 13th richest person in the universe at $27 billion. He now is guarded by New York City police. But if he ever stops being mayor-for-life, he’ll have private guards. And can take unusual precautions to protect his own privacy, such as traveling to those private islands featured on the Wealth Channel.

You, however, cannot. He wants to take your guns, leaving you defenseless against terrorists. And he wants the government ceaselessly to spy on your every move.

He should call himself Mayor Orwell.

By John Seiler

The ghost haunting this past weekend’s California Republican Convention in Sacramento was the steroid-bloated, hulking apparition of ex-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Just eight years ago, in 2005, Arnold was the toast of the GOP. He launched a “year of reform” that led to a Reform Slate of initiatives on the November ballot to rein in public-employee union power, reform teacher tenure and reform redistricting. He was carrying the Republican Party on his shoulders and would bring them back control of the Legislature and more statewide offices.

There even was talk among Republicans of amending the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to become president.

Then it turned out the Reform Slate was badly organized. Arnold campaigned tepidly for it. And every initiative went down to smoking defeat.

After that, Arnold panicked and dumped his Republican-influenced policies, claiming “the people” had shown him now to go. According to Ian Halperin’s biography, “Governator,” Arnold then effectively turned over his administration to his wife, Democrat Maria Kennedy-Shriver. Maria hired Susan Kennedy (no relation), an activist left-wing Democrat, as Arnold’s chief-of-staff. Kennedy became the “little governor,” while Arnold frolicked among his Hollywood cronies. Republicans in the Legislature claimed they were frozen out of Arnold’s circle of influence.

In 2006, Arnold signed into law the jobs-killing AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Republicans should have worked for his defeat in his re-election bid that year. Instead, they overwhelmingly supported him. They figured he still was “our Arnold” when, in debate, he attacked the tax-increase proposals of Democratic nominee Phil Angelides. And after all, he still was The Terminator, Commando, Predator and Conan the Republican.

He advertised himself as a new kind of Republican, a pro-business moderate, just the kind George Skelton is suggesting the GOP needs to promote today in 2013. He was teamed with Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (now an independent) as a new kind of GOP standard bearer.

Thanks to hefty GOP support, Arnold won re-election with 56 percent of the vote.

In 2007, he proposed a socialized medicine scheme for the state so radical even leftist Democrats in the state Legislature rejected it.

Crash

The economy crashed in 2008, taking the California budget with it. In 2009, Arnold snapped into action: Breaking his pledge not to raise taxes, he increased taxes a record $13 billion. Doing so, as Chuck DeVore has noted, increased state unemployment another percentage point than it otherwise would have been, to 13 percent.

Arnold a promising young, conservative Latino state senator, Abel Maldonado, to provide a crucial vote for the tax increase. Abel was rewarded an appointment to be lieutenant governor; and with an initiative, Proposition 14, which instituted an open primary Maldo thought would help him. It didn’t. He lost re-election as lieutenant governor in 2010 and for a congressional seat in 2012.

In the 2010 election, California Republicans repeated their folly, nominating another “moderate” business person, Meg Whitman, for governor. She was wiped out.

In 2011, Arnold left office in disgrace. In his last days in office, he commuted the murder sentence of the son AB 32 ally and former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Arnold’s wife, Maria, ditched him after it became known he impregnated the family maid. It was a new kind of “Republican family values.”

At the end of the movie, “Commando,” Arnold single-handedly invades an island occupied by thousands of the troops of a foreign thug. After Arnold shoots everybody, an American general comes in for the cleanup, and asks, “Leave anything for us?” Arnold quips, “Juszt bodiez.”

After his seven years of misrule of California and attacking his own party, that’s what’s left of the California Republican Party: Just bodies.

By Chris Reed

Despite some pension reforms and program cuts, the city of Los Angeles remains in difficult financial shape. A Jan. 24 Fitch credit-rating service analysis says the L.A. economy is rebounding, but that city leaders struggle to find the political will to deal with structural budget problems, and that huge annual deficits will cause headaches for many years to come.

What is a key culprit in L.A.’s financial woes? You guessed it. Fitch says that of the city’s $3.9 billion 2011 general fund budget, nearly 20 percent ($773.5 million) went to fund retirement health care and other post-employment benefits and that nearly 15 percent ($577.4 million) went to city employee and public safety pension funds.

So what are the three key candidates in the March 5 mayor’s race saying they’ll do to deal with the budget and the daunting fact that more than one-third of the city general budget goes to fund public employee retirement benefits?

As this L.A. Times story makes clear, all want to basically duck the topic. Still, at least one candidate, City Councilwoman Jan Perry, knows tough times are ahead, with bankruptcy a possibility.

Wooing cops, firefighters and the SEIU

But two candidates want to make the problem even worse. Candidate Wendy Greuel wants to add 2,000 police and 800 firefighters — a 20 percent increase in a city where crime and fire problems are near modern historic lows. As the city controller, one would think Greuel should know better.

Meanwhile, City Councilman Eric Garcetti, the third major candidate, is in a fight with Greuel to see whom can do the most pandering to the Service Employees International Union, according to a Feb. 5 L.A. Times report:

“[Greuel and Garcetti] offered strong commitments of solidarity with the union representing a major chunk of civilian employees at City Hall, according to recordings of the [candidate interview] sessions obtained by The Times.

“The pledges [were] made last week in a members-only meeting for union workers considering a possible endorsement …

“Greuel … accused city leaders of failing to follow collective bargaining procedures when cutting retirement benefits for future city employees — a complaint being voiced loudly by the SEIU. …

“When it was his turn, Garcetti repeated a pledge to make all of the city’s department heads reapply for their jobs — offering a commitment that city workers would play a role in deciding which managers will remain. …

“The remarks show how much Greuel and Garcetti covet the backing of a union that represents thousands of janitors, trash truck drivers and other blue-collar city workers. If SEIU weighs in on the contest to replace Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, it could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars and scores of volunteers for a favored candidate.”

Unfortunately for L.A., Greuel is considered the clear favorite, not the far more clear-eyed Perry.

Having lived in Southern California since 1990 and watched the city of Los Angeles go downhill under labor-friendly mayors (Antonio Villaraigosa and James Hahn) and do well under pro-business moderates of both parties (Richard Riordan and Tom Bradley), I’ve wondered when Angelenos would become as pragmatic as New Yorkers.

The same dynamic of mayoral success holds in the Big Apple — pro-business centrists like Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani have a way better record than labor-friendly liberals like David Dinkins and Abe Beame. And in New York, the heavily Democratic electorate figured this out long ago. When was the last time New York City voters elected a Democrat to be mayor?

All the way back in 1990.