The tailored-suit crowd is gracing us all with their (virtual) presence under the Golden Dome this week. Not one, not two, but three astroturf lobbyists have weighed in with specious arguments against S.18, a bill to ban flavored tobacco products and e-liquids that passed the Senate last year and now awaits action in the House Human Services Committee.

I have to give them credit for creative thinking. It’s long past the day when they could come right out and advocate for products that are proven harmful to people’s health. Instead, they argue that S.18 would lead to organized crime and poorer mental health, and actually promote tobacco consumption. It’s a feat of logical acrobatics worthy of Cirque du Soleil. One has to hope that our lawmakers are smart enough to see through the smoke.

Two of the three draw their paychecks from Koch-related organizations with deceptively consumer-friendly monickers. Elizabeth Hicks spoke via Zoom on behalf of the Consumer Choice Center, which sounds kinda lefty — but the emphasis is decidedly on the word “choice,” as in “get the government’s nose out of the business of business.” CCC has said that it opposes “paternalistic” government regulations, and has lobbied against limits on tobacco advertising and sale in the U.S. and Europe.

(During her testimony, Hicks tried to give weight to her views by disclosing that she is, herself, a cancer survivor. Committee chair Theresa Wood thanked her for her openness, and then asked her about the fact that the CCC is funded, in part, by the e-cigarette industry. Hicks replied weakly that her organization gets donations from many sources. I bet.)

Lindsey Stroud of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance didn’t even bother to show up via Zoom. Instead, she submitted written testimony on behalf of an organization that has opposed solar and wind energy, community-based broadband, and price controls on prescription drugs.

Finally,we have Robert Melvin of the R Street Institute, a lobbying outfit that’s drawn significant support from normally left-leaning donor organizations like the William and Flora Hewitt Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Even so, R Street describes its perspective as “free market“. Its letterhead, in fact, boasts of “Free Markets. Real Solutions.” It has, among other things, opposed minimum wage increases, government enforcement of net neutrality, and restrictions on e-cigarette sales.

A cornerstone of their arguments against banning flavored e-cigs is the fact that vaping is a safer alternative to smoking and, for some, a way station on the road to quitting entirely. There is evidence for that contention, although as committee member Rep. Jessica Brumsted pointed out, the potential health risks of e-cigs are unknown because they haven’t been on the market that long. But even if vapes are less risky, S.18 doesn’t ban vaping. It only bans flavored vapes.

The lobbyists countered with studies purporting to show that adults trying to quit smoking are more likely to use flavored varieties like, ahem, Tutti-Frutti and bubble gum. How sophisticated. In any case, there’s no way of knowing if adults trying to kick the “combustible tobacco” (lobbyists’ construction) habit are less likely to do so if they can’t access varieties like Cherry Lemon Razz or Pod Juice. (At the same time, they argued that young people are not enticed by bright colors and sweet flavors. Sheesh.)

And even if you buy the adults-love-Skittles argument, you have to weigh the potential benefits of adult consumption with the risks of the open sale of rainbow-colored, Mountain Dew-inspired varieties to minors.

Oh, but if we banned flavored e-cigs, Hicks told the committee, we’d create a vast new “illicit market” in unregulated, potentially dangerous products — some of them brought to our verdant land via “international smuggling from China”!

Yep, the old reliable Chinese bogeyman, gently stroking his Fu Manchu as he plots the downfall of the West.

Melvin made a two-sided argument about S.18’s potential effect on policing. On one hand, he contended that enforcing an e-cig ban would divert the cops’ attention away from “violent crime.” Perhaps we should do away with speed limits for the same reason. On the other, he floated a seemingly progressive talking point — that the ban risked “increasing police interactions with juveniles” leading to negative consequences “from otherwise avoidable entanglement with the justice system at a young age.” Gee, if he ever needs a job, maybe he can go to work for that notorious justice reform advocate Sarah Fair George.

Stroud’s testimony, downloadable from the committee’s “Documents” page, included a laundry list of carefully curated statistics. Some lowlights: Use of tobacco and e-cigs is already on the decline, so there’s no need for further action… a mere 7.8% of middle schoolers are currently vaping (a number that ought to be zero)… 30% of Vermont high schoolers had used e-cigs “to treat feelings of anxiety, depression and/or stress,” so, I guess, why deprive them?… and my favorite, “there are far more adults using cigarettes and e-cigarettes, compared to Vermont high school students.” Which ignores the fact that there are a LOT more adults in Vermont than high schoolers.

Actually, that one is in a tight race with Stroud’s contention that Vermont collects far more tobacco taxes from hapless consumers than it spends on tobacco-cessation efforts. Which is true but irrelevant because (a) tobacco taxes are meant to discourage consumption, and they do, and (b) it’s a completely different issue from what to do about flavored vapes.

Taken all together, you get a picture of out-of-state lobbyists who have placed their souls in escrow and are basically engaged in throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. Compared to some big-ticket parachute acts I’ve witnessed, this one is honestly kind of sad.