This is perverse given that tobacco cigarettes are still widely available. I can't remember the last time I was actually satisfied with a decision from the Board of Supervisors.
[deleted]
San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
11–20 of 426 posts
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#12So all these people hooked on juul are gonna switch to real cigs. Nice.
Sure but... it's sort of crazy that juul has been allowed to get a whole new generation of folks hooked on tobacco. There's been a myth spread around that e-cigs exist solely as a more healthy alternative to traditional cigs - they are more healthy but those candy flavours have resulted in my office now having more smokers in it than ever before... and they're all under 23.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#13They want to ban a safer alternative to cigarettes for people addicted to nicotine?
Are they trying to make the health consequences of their existing drug abuse problems even worse?
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#14Must be they didn't get enough tax revenue or kickbacks. Only explanation for that deal.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#15All prohibition is asinine but this has to take the cake.
Even if there is no way to prevent more kids from getting addicted to vaping (and that's a big if), having less kids and many less adults smoking cigarettes is such a huge win for public health.
--
Anecdotally I went from 2 packs a day to chain vaping for a few years, health improved enough to start being much more active, finally weaned down nicotine, quitting vaping was hard but not near as yard as other cigarette quits, have been nicotine free for almost a year (not even a puff) and now I avg about 10+ miles a week running and 50+ miles a week biking and am in the best shape of my life at almost-40.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#16Does anyone have a link to the text of the actual legislation? The article paints this as a general ban on sale/distribution/manufacture, but elsewhere narrows it to "on city property", so I'm curious about what the legislation actually says.
Regardless, it's asinine that San Francisco would ban e-cigarettes and not actual cigarettes. It's also pointless; nothing stopping people from heading to Oakland or Daly City (or further) for their vape pens/juice.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#17What the actual fuck
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#18Convinced part of the problem with political offices is that elected politicians have no incentive to actually consider second order or third order effects of any piece of legislation they pass. Everything is optimized for first order effects only e.g. optics because that is what they think "shows" they did something.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#19This is perverse given that tobacco cigarettes are still widely available. I can't remember the last time I was actually satisfied with a decision from the Board of Supervisors.
I think this is somewhat justified, smoking rates were decreasing nationally until e-cigs came into fashion, of course some conventional smokers switched which lowered the health detriments of smoking - but many more of the e-cig users are new smokers.
I'd prefer a full ban but this is at least staunching what was a regression for public health. E-cigarettes, since their introduction, haven't improved public health - they've worsened it.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#20Pot and tobacco is legal. Juul HQ is there.
They are doing their best to destroy SF from within.