I can’t help but question if this is really how the forefathers intended the land of the free to solve difficult problems by simply banning them. All this hope for a better future is making a worse present with no real proof that will even payoff.
San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
111–120 of 426 posts
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#112Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#113I f hate SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing. Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago (which gets tons of snow): do nothing. Horrendous traffic? Do nothing.
But: Vaping! Freak out! NIMBY! Move fast!
Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 -…
I thought the health effects of e-cigs were relatively benign? I know it's common to consider the health profile of a substance with 'no substance' as the basis of comparison, but people seem to like stimulation and get it however they can. I don't like e-cigs, but I imagine they have to be one of the least harmful ways of getting stimulated. Is there a safer stimulant and do you think this ban will encourage people…
E-cigarettes greatly reduces a lot of the ash related health issues with smoking and regular ash inhalation is quite bad for you and not limited to smoking - being immersed in smoke, even just from a bon-fire, isn't great for your respiratory system. Like most other health things it's moderation that counts for ash inhalation, smoking occasionally, going to a bon-fire once a month in the summer... these are going to instantly damage your lungs but it can add up. A properly tuned vape will produce only trace amounts of ash, but hot vapes can end up ashing the liquid - this is especially prevalent in vapes that have been tuned to heat up more quickly. And, just for reference, smoking other things like an mj joint carries the same health risks.
Aside from the ash related risks tobacco is highly addictive due to the nicotine and contains other toxins that can harm you in the long term. For reference, here's what Canada has to say about the chemicals[1].
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-toba...
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been an increase in vaping, but the health benefits of vaping instead of smoking are so large that they swamp the ill health effects from increased vaping unless you get 20 new vapers for each person who quits smoking. In this debate people really underestimate how bad smoking is for you. UK NHS estimates e-cigarettes about 95% less damaging than smoking. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/vaping-qui…
Anecdotally, I (as a college student) know more than 20x the number of people who vape than people who smoke. Smoking is bad, but vaping is becoming incredibly mainstream with young people to the point where it's a bigger health risk.
I don't know if you realize how mainstream smoking was. Everyone did it. Eeeeeveryone.
I have a feeling most of your college friends will grow out of vaping.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
And needles for heroin distributed for free
Do you want needles for heroin distributed for free or do you want your tax dollars to be spent on treating easily preventable diseases because it's hard to obtain needles? Making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.
1. I'd prefer to spend my money as I see fit through charity. Bureaucrats didn't distribute mosquito nets across Africa, Bill and Melinda Gates did.
2. If the government is going to take my money, they should be spending it on treatment of the underlying issues. Not putting a bandaid on the needle diseases.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#117Really, really awful legislation. Just shows you what a terrible job the SF supervisors are doing.
You can write to them about your feelings.
- Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org
- https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board
Or if you have thoughts about this particular issue, it is now in Mayor Breed's hands:
- MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been an increase in vaping, but the health benefits of vaping instead of smoking are so large that they swamp the ill health effects from increased vaping unless you get 20 new vapers for each person who quits smoking. In this debate people really underestimate how bad smoking is for you. UK NHS estimates e-cigarettes about 95% less damaging than smoking. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/vaping-qui…
Anecdotally, I (as a college student) know more than 20x the number of people who vape than people who smoke. Smoking is bad, but vaping is becoming incredibly mainstream with young people to the point where it's a bigger health risk.
Some of those vapers would have been smokers. And the smoking rate for youth never got close to being below 5%.
Huff post says that in 2011 it was 16% for youth.
So if you know 20-30x vapers than smokers that's incredible evidence that vaping is reducing the number of smokers dramatically.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cigarette-smoking-decline_n_6...
For some historical context when I started college in mid 2000's 20-30% of the people I knew smoked.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 -…
I thought the health effects of e-cigs were relatively benign? I know it's common to consider the health profile of a substance with 'no substance' as the basis of comparison, but people seem to like stimulation and get it however they can. I don't like e-cigs, but I imagine they have to be one of the least harmful ways of getting stimulated. Is there a safer stimulant and do you think this ban will encourage people…
Yes, they are vastly less harmful than cigarettes. Anyone who says different is misled, or misleading.
They are, however, still extremely addictive. Arguably more so than cigarettes, since they enable the consumption of much higher doses of nicotine.
A friend once told me, having quit nicotine and heroin, that while quitting heroin was 'like being the living dead', he could probably go through it again, but not nicotine.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#120All 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…
As a non-smoker who can't stand the smell, and hate smoking with a passion, I for one would rather people vape all day. At least it's only affecting their health then.
But yeah, banning all of it (with priority on getting rid of the real cigarettes that cause others' harm) in public spaces would be my preference.