In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-f...

Probably because gun violence isn't a disease, and there's already several agencies under the DoJ for that.

The DoJ is not a research institution, and the CDC doesn't only study disease. They study all threats to public health, including smoking, heat waves, and bicycle accidents.

Honestly, this is one of the biggest issues I have with a government bureaucracy like the CDC. The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence.

But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. The states signed the Master Settlement Agreement. I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The corporations were given blanket immunity in exchange for a paycheck. Any further expenditure of government on the subject is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

> But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease.

Addiction is considered a disease by physicians, psychiatrists, and medical researchers[1].

> I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it.

The CDC publishes research on things like:

- second-hand smoke

- preventing your children from starting to smoke

- the costs to society -- not just the smoker

- pros/cons of taxing tobacco in different ways

Because of government-funded research, smoking is banned in a lot of places that I don't have a choice of avoiding, such as airports, government offices, and grocery stores.

The government's research is to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens.

And that's not even getting into the cost to society of someone dying early. They leave behind medical debts that increase all of our costs, and they potentially leave behind family members who need care.

1. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-...

No, government research is not "to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens". This is explicitly what the Master Settlement Agreement does in 46 states. Marketing of tobacco products is nearly eliminated under the MSA. Anti smoking advocacy groups were formed. The pro-tobacco industries groups were dissolved.

If the MSA is failing at that, the solution is to void the agreement and coerce the tobacco industry into another one with updated statues. Not to expand the CDC into areas like tax policy.

And really - "preventing your children from starting to smoke"? There is no research that needs to be done in this area. The industry can't market to children. The industry can't sell to children. There are no shortage of smokers who shared their plight before their death (Yul Brynner comes to mind). If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society. No more money needs to be evaporated into this "research".

> If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society.

That is what they're researching: how to stop people from harming themselves, others, and society by smoking.

Tobacco companies can't market directly to children, but they have been working around it in many ways for decades. The latest method is vaping.

Science and policy are not "one and done". We need to know if past policies were mistakes, and we need to adapt new policies to changes in tactics by bad actors.

If vaping is an issue, then the legislature and AG of each state should draft a letter to any companies selling vaping products telling them that they are expected to sign the MSA by a given date. If that doesn't happen, ban the companies products completely and forever. There is no need to waste money researching it. It's nicotine. It's addictive. It's a carcinogen. This has been known for much, much longer than I have been alive.

Coercion is the literal function of government.

The issue is, government is too spineless to ever actually do that. Governments have become dependent on the money that flows in from taxes on those products and settlements like the MSA. They can't actually make good on the threat to ban them because they depend on the money.

So instead we get "research", "negotiations", and "compromise". Which are all a waste of taxpayer money. The US has some of the most brutal punishments in the world for drug trafficking and possession (I think China is actually worse, but I am unsure) for individuals. But we can't just ban the marketing of nicotine containing products and accessories? I don't buy it.

> The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence... But smoking?

Would it help to learn that the CDC researched AIDS extensively in the very early 1980s (as well as one small study from 1978-1984)? That they tracked the spread of AIDS worldwide during that time, and were the first to identify blood-transfustions as a vector for infection. That in 1982/1983 they were issuing guidance for dealing with suspected cases - 2 years before there was a test. That the CDC hosted the first international symposium on AIDS in 1985?

The solution there is not to get information from the president, but from the experts.

Smoking was something they started researching after they were granted more investigative powers in 1987 and 1992 bringing their scope beyond "disease" to "health research". And messaging. AFAIK, most research they do on smoking is on smoking cessation programs and the efficacy of anti-smoking measures. Well, and thanks to vaping, a lot on the health effects of that.

Can a mania be a disease? The CDC can't study gun violence using epidemiology and the DEA says there is no legitimate use of Cannabis. Both seem anti-science to me.

sure, just saying that

>virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has

is not true

The CDC isn't limited to studying disease. That was their original mission, but Congress expanded it to include a variety of health related issues, including environmental effects, dangers associated with jobsites, etc. it also is mandated to collect statistics that impact public health.

They do, they choose not to. That they cannot by some law is a myth. Obama even called them out on it.

Obama also had them author a massive study on all aspects of gun violence, but the results went quite against what the Dems wanted to claim, so it got pretty quiet again.

What happened is they did publish some studies, and one was quite bad (to this day the author will not release the dataset, for example), but was invoked for a lot of policy. Congress chastised them for it, banned them from advocating public policy, but they did not ban the CDC from studies (and they still do studies, very few - if you search you can find them).

When people reference the CDC not being able to study gun violence, they're referring to the Dickey Amendment of 1996. With the ambiguity in interpretation of "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control" coupled with an earmark that shifted the exact amount the CDC had allocated to gun violence research to something unrelated, it ended up being, at minimum, a de facto ban on gun violence research (with a strongly implied threat of funding cuts for breaking the ban). There were exceptions to the de facto ban when they had marching orders from elsewhere, e.g. Obama's directive after Parkland.

That said, 2018 finally saw an interpretation of the Dickey Amendment codified that allowed, unambiguously, research into gun violence. And 2020 finally saw funding allocated for gun violence research. So, after over two decades, the CDC finally regained both the go ahead and the funding.

Given the above, I think it's still reasonable for people to use the shorthand of saying the CDC had been banned from doing gun violence research. Softening the language to be slightly less absolute would help, but I'd consider people to be in the ballpark of correct when they call it a ban on research. And it's also correct that that's no longer the case, thankfully.

Which study was the one that made everything quiet? Which one was the bad one?

Other than that, I'm not sure why you're being downvoted without replies.

Here are the recent CDC funded gun studies.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea...

A 1993 Kellerman article claiming guns in the home increased homicides. From what I recall, he would not release his dataset to other researchers, and many other researchers couldnt replicate his work.

Indeed.

Kellerman’s methodology that he published among swaths of missing data included ~250 phone surveys where someone was shot in their own home and a police report was filed (nothing verified, no concern to who owned the gun or who was shot). This was FAR more representative of drug use and domestic violence than a typical gun owner - yet - it was used as a primary factor to the push assault weapon ban and Brady Bill in 94. This then directly led to the Republican blowout of 96 and likely costing Al Gore the presidency in 2000 according to Bill Clinton. Kellermann is an absolute hack who still enjoys appearances on NPR, ABC, etc as a gun violence expert.

Actually they do. They have performed some firearms research in recent years. The restriction is just that the money cannot be spent on studies looking to support gun control. They choose to err on the side of caution and limit the studies rather than seek clarification through the courts on what would constitute supporting a policy.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-resea...

I think the person you are responding to knows the CDC has done studies about gun violence, but does not believe the CDC has any authority to actually do them.

"sure, just saying that

>virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has

is not true"

This is from the same user. That and the use of "even" in the other comment makes me think they believe that the CDC can't do/fund firearm research, as that is a common media/political narrative.

What does this have to do with anything?

The CDC declared gun violence a public health crisis and started butting into the issue with their "We are science" attitude.