41–50 of 426 posts
The HN response seems strongly negative so far. Can someone educated in the space play devil’s advocate and share ideas on why it might be a good move?
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…
Family member finally quit smoking to ride more, went a little too gung-ho on endurance and developed an afib. He couldn't take blood thinners due to arthritis meds. Mixing those is apparently worse than your stroke risk. But he lost that lottery and threw a clot a few years ago and things were pretty bad.
Does 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 (…
They 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?
The rich and politically-connected SF elite figure this'll kill the underclass faster by pushing them toward cigarettes.
\end{tinfoil}
More seriously, I'm more-or-less in favor of banning e-cigarettes... if they actually bothered to ban actual cigarettes, too. The failure to pass a general nicotine ban has turned a presumably-well-intentioned piece of legislation into yet another paver on the road to Hell.
EDIT: apparently the actual laws are more nuanced than that, and while they do specifically target electronic cigarettes, that targeting is as an example of a class of product not previously considered under existing legislation. I haven't read through the full details on the relevant ordinances[1][2], but it ain't quite as simple as "SF wants to extort Juul for money"; on the surface they actually seem pretty well-reasoned.
[1]: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...
[2]: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...
The homeless in SF use cigs, not e-cigs. It would've therefore been productive to actually ban the sale of cigs instead so as to drive out the homeless, but why would one expect an ounce of unbiased logic from politicians?
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 devi…
The HN response seems strongly negative so far. Can someone educated in the space play devil’s advocate and share ideas on why it might be a good move?
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-tobacco-bonds-work-an...