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

91–100 of 426 posts

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

#91

Post by bjackman »

joshanderson wrote: post #77
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…

The problem with ecigs is that they are way more polluting than regular cigarettes, due to all the plastic cartridges from the liquid and the batteries in the ecig devices. So regardless of anything else, it’s good that ecigs are banned as much as possible.

This is only a problem with the cheaper Zuul-style units, which use disposable parts with vendor lock-in. Even with those, I'd not automatically believe that they are more polluting than cigarette butts.

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

#92

Post by golemiprague »

mattoxic wrote: post #34

I hate cigarettes, I hate the litter, the smell, and the smokers' belief that they have the divine right to pollute my airspace. I also hate the taxes I spend on keeping them in hospital - but. E cigarettes don't cause litter, the smoke is far less offensive. If people are going to smoke they will smoke. SF would be far better off banning actual cigarettes.

You don't waste more taxes on cigarette smokers than any other person. Almost everybody are sick towards the end of their life and waste the system money exactly like smokers, sometimes even more because they live longer. Not to mention the taxes on smoking which cover any supposed cost to society and probably much more than that. If anything it is the smokers that finance you. And don't make me start on the cost of many other lifestyle choices, from people who break their arms during some sport activity to people who stopped smoking and became fat and have all the issues driving from it. Calculating which lifestyle is more costly to society is very hard because there are so many parameters and implications, it is better we just leave this issue alone and let everybody live the lifestyle they like or move to a fully privatised healthcare where each person pay for their own problems. But nobody wants that except from Americans

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

#93

Post by lolc »

QuickToBan wrote: post #33

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?

> to drive out the homeless

How nice of you to think of the homeless too. Where do you want to drive them to?

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

#94

Post by stefan_ »

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #68
lovecg wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily see that being the case, but can you point to some references with these numbers?

From the Surgeon General: > E-cigarette use among U.S. youth and young adults is now a major public health concern. E-cigarette use has increased considerably in recent years, growing an astounding 900% among high school students from 2011 to 2015. [0] [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes...

Well, a major public health concern right next to fast food. That's about the level of harm we're talking here.

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

#95

Post by sokoloff »

joshanderson wrote: post #82
mattoxic wrote: post #34

I hate cigarettes, I hate the litter, the smell, and the smokers' belief that they have the divine right to pollute my airspace. I also hate the taxes I spend on keeping them in hospital - but. E cigarettes don't cause litter, the smoke is far less offensive. If people are going to smoke they will smoke. SF would be far better off banning actual cigarettes.

Ecigs cause tons of litter from the refill cartridges and from the batteries. Ecigs are much worse of a pollution problem than actual cigarettes.

Really? It seems like every pack of 20 cigs, seemingly at least 10 of the filters end on the ground somewhere, apparently based on some kind of fanciful "Oh, this isn't litter somehow..." thinking.

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

#99

Post by lozaning »

slg wrote: post #55
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…

Would you support methadone being freely available over the counter? After all, it is a valuable tool in helping get people off more dangerous opioids.

As per the NPR program I heard last night, this is already the case in SF.

Info for those interested here: https://harmreduction.org/issues/overdose-prevention/dope-sf...

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

#100

Post by markrages »

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #68
lovecg wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily see that being the case, but can you point to some references with these numbers?

From the Surgeon General: > E-cigarette use among U.S. youth and young adults is now a major public health concern. E-cigarette use has increased considerably in recent years, growing an astounding 900% among high school students from 2011 to 2015. [0] [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes...

This growth percentage is for E-cigarettes, not for smoking.

And when were E-cigs invented anyway? Comparing against 2011 may be a way to get big percentage numbers, without describing much about prevalence.

Post reply on HN