Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 426 posts

Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

#21

Post by tjr225 »

munk-a wrote: post #19
pigscantfly wrote: post #7

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.

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 -…

Heh. Well, I realize this is anecdotal, but I'd probably still be smoking a pack a day if I hadn't tried out e-cigs as a cessation tool. It really makes it easy. Smoke and Vape free for around 4 years now.

Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

#23

Post by munk-a »

llamataboot wrote: post #15

All 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, quittin…

I am happy that's worked out for you - and e-cigs are definitely less dangerous than conventional cigarettes, but the adoption rate of smoking among younger folks has spiked since flavoured e-cigs were introduced.

I really want vapes to be available as an alternative to conventional smoking but the companies pushing them now are addicting a lot of new users, if the market participants were more responsible these devices could have been all positive.

Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

#24

Post by zdragnar »

I'll never understand why lawmakers think that fruit and other flavorings for tobacco are aimed at getting kids hooked. It's almost like they think no adult has ever enjoyed fruit or candy, and that making teens smoke plain cigarettes will keep them from being rebellious.

I've tried almost every variation of ecigarette mod out there except mechanical mods, because I'm not an idiot enough to know I'm too much of an idiot to use one safely. Nicotine salt (the type used in juul and smok nord, among others) are the best- balance of nicotine from the sub-ohm types without the obscene amount of vapor pouring into your lungs, and the filter doesn't constantly clog / burn like the older, smaller pen and marker varieties.

Does it suck that also makes them perfect for teens to hide their addiction? Sure. Then again, there's also a market starting to boom for tobacco-free nicotine pouches, using tea leaves or other filler. It's also way, way cheaper to get the liquid for vaping online than it is in stores anyway.

This ban, at the scope of the city, won't help teens, and it's only going to hurt the people living there. For better or worse, drugs like caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and THC are here to stay.

Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

#25

Post by conanbatt »

1952wasntU wrote: post #20

Pot and tobacco is legal. Juul HQ is there. They are doing their best to destroy SF from within.

They are muscling Juul for money. They don't want another Uber incident where they don't get any cash.

SF City is one of the most corrupt institutions I know.

Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

#26

Post by mullingitover »

Let's work through the logic here:

San Francisco assumes that the existing controls on the purchase of tobacco products by minors are a failure. They must act.

San Francisco's reaction to this is to ban all tobacco products from the city, for the children. This is perfectly rational.

But wait, no, their reaction is to ban the harm reduction option and keep the worst tobacco product known to be the most addictive and the most harmful to health on store shelves, where they believe they can't keep it from being purchased by minors.

The headline should read, "San Fransisco insists that minors switch to cigarettes." That's the only rational conclusion any sane person could draw from this.

Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

#29

Post by nradov »

munk-a wrote: post #19
pigscantfly wrote: post #7

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.

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 -…

Based on that justification, perhaps SF should also consider banning people from shooting up on the sidewalk? You know, for public health.

Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban

#30

Post by jasonhansel »

munk-a wrote: post #19
pigscantfly wrote: post #7

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.

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 -…

Furthermore, the fact that they are so addictive is (in itself) a reason to tightly regulate them.
Post reply on HN