by T J Martinelli, The Center Square, July 14, 2025.
Excerpt:
Washington state is staring down the barrel of deficit spending by 2028, and the latest blow to taxpayers comes from the state’s most significant tax hike yet—a move propelled by years of ballooning state expenditures. An examination of state budgets by The Center Square reveals a staggering trend.
Back in the 2013-15 budget, Washington’s spending was around $80 billion. Fast forward to the 2025-27 budget, and that figure is projected to exceed $173 billion, marking an astonishing increase of over 116%. For context, the U.S. inflation rate during that same period has only crept up by 35.63%.
by Jeffrey A. Singer, Cato at Liberty, July 16, 2025.
Excerpt:
Recent research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by scholars from the University of New South Wales has found that nicotine e-cigarettes surpass traditional nicotine lozenges or gum in their effectiveness as smoking cessation aids. This discovery lends further credence to earlier studies, including a comprehensive 2023 Cochrane review and a systematic review from 2021 that analyzed seven randomized controlled trials.
Moreover, an article published in Filter highlights an Italian study indicating that individuals who quit smoking with the help of nicotine e-cigarettes or heated tobacco products showed significant improvements in VO2max—the maximum amount of oxygen the body can utilize during intense exercise, a vital indicator of cardiovascular fitness and endurance. This 12-week randomized controlled trial revealed that “quitters showed the greatest improvement in VO2max at both week 4 and week 12,” with no substantial differences observed between those using e-cigarettes and those opting for heated tobacco products.
DRH note: This finding shouldn’t come as a shock; nicotine e-cigarettes are far more akin to traditional cigarettes than lozenges or gum.
by Damon Root, Reason, July 17, 2025.
Excerpts:
A fundamental tenet of free speech that often eludes censors is that suppressing speech tends to ignite the very flames they seek to extinguish.
Need proof? Just consult the writings of Karl Marx.
And:
Consider the historical case of Salmon P. Chase. In the summer of 1836, Chase was a prosperous young attorney in Cincinnati, Ohio. On July 12, a proslavery mob stormed the offices of a local abolitionist newspaper, the Philanthropist, and destroyed its press. A fortnight later, the mob sought out the paper’s editor, the abolitionist James G. Birney.
“I heard with disgust and horror the mob violence directed against the Anti-Slavery Press and Anti-Slavery men of Cincinnati in 1836,” Chase later wrote. “At the time, I opposed the views of the abolitionists, but I recognized the slave power as a formidable adversary to freedom of speech, press, and personal liberty. I took a public stand against the mob.”
Thus began Chase’s remarkable antislavery journey, which saw him argue against the Fugitive Slave Act before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-found the antislavery Free Soil Party (whose catchy slogan, “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men,” was coined by him), and ultimately replace the notorious Roger Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott decision, as Chief Justice of the United States.
Chase’s outrage at the violent suppression of abolitionist speech marked a pivotal moment. “From this time on,” he recalled of that tumultuous summer of 1836, “I became a decided opponent of Slavery and the Slave Power.”
DRH note: Notably, as Chief Justice, Chase ruled against a measure he had previously championed as Secretary of the Treasury, concerning the legal tender status of paper money. In the case of Hepburn v. Griswold, he was part of the majority that determined paper money did not constitute legal tender.
by Steven Greenhut, Reason, July 18, 2025.
Excerpts:
In a world where absurdities abound, the topic of land-use regulation in California—where progressive initiatives aim to spur housing development by, believe it or not, reducing government control over property use—stands out. Ironically, many conservatives staunchly defend outdated progressive-era regulations that undermine our freedoms. The situation is undoubtedly perplexing.
These conservatives seem to believe that the founders would endorse a framework where bureaucrats dictate the appropriate use of every parcel of land and where property owners are left to grovel for permission to undertake any development project. It’s as if they think that exercising governmental power to restrict neighbors’ actions is enshrined in the Constitution alongside the Second Amendment.
And:
Zoning is a construct of government power, which makes it peculiar to see opponents of deregulation act as though it were a fundamental right. Consequently, the government has the latitude to alter these rules at will. For a more rational approach, let’s allow freedom and market forces to dictate land use and other facets of society.
Note: Image of Karl Marx was created by ChatGPT.
