San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by superkuh » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:34 PM UTC

bmer wrote: post #108

I do not understand why this thread is so against this legislation. Issues with e-cigarettes: 1) they bypass laws regarding cigarette advertising: compare e-cig packaging with cigarette packaging; this is problematic, especially for youth (the non-users most likely to be vulnerable to advertising for such products) 2) contrary to what is portrayed, they are not interested in helping people quit tobacco usage: tobacco…

I think most people are against prohibition because prohibition brings in police violence to a situation where there was no violence.

I guess it depends on what happens if you break this law. If police officers use violence against you if you use an e-cigarette then that is way, way wrong. Violence should not be used when no violence is happening and the person hasn't defrauded or hurt anyone.

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

#192

Post by kaycebasques » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:35 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #139

0x70dd wrote: post #89

Almost 2 years ago I saw a comment on HN from a guy who quit smoking after reading Alan Carr's "The Easy Way". As a person who was heavily addicted, often smoking more than a pack a day, struggling to quit for good, I decided to read the book. It did wonders - for almost 2 years I haven't smoked and I don't miss it. It also helped friends to whom I recommended the book. I wanted to drop a comment here in case I can i…

A friend of mine who I was hounding for years to quit got this book six months ago and quit. Then he gave it to his dad and he quit. I was fortunate enough to quit six years ago but it sounds like this book is really transformative. I haven’t read it myself, only seen these effects.

This intrigues me. I'm not addicted to smoking but am going to check the book out because I'm sure I'll pick up self-discipline tricks from it.

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

#193

Post by delecti » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:35 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #168

zdragnar wrote: post #24

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 id…

> I'll never understand why lawmakers think that fruit and other flavorings for tobacco are aimed at getting kids hooked. Do you have kids? They love what their friends have, and really really like candy flavors.

I'm an adult and I also really like candy. I have no interest in tobacco or nicotine, but I've considered getting tasty non-nicotine vape flavors because a zero-calorie alternative to actual candy might help in much the same way that non-tobacco vaping is a healthier alternative to smoking.

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

#194

Post by mullingitover » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:35 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #165

mullingitover wrote: post #26

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…

Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction alternative then it would be fine. But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing, getting kids hooked on nicotine that would have otherwise never touched a cigarette. Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware that people don't…

> Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids.

Great, ban all advertising of nicotine products. I'd be fine with banning soft drink ads while we're at it. However, what does this to for public health when the harm reduction option is removed and literally the most harmful option available is for sale by the very system that SF doesn't trust to keep its products away from children?

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

#195

Post by objectivetruth » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:36 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #165

mullingitover wrote: post #26

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…

Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction alternative then it would be fine. But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing, getting kids hooked on nicotine that would have otherwise never touched a cigarette. Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware that people don't…

>But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing

Can you name any examples of this marketing for a curious reader? After the "blu" e-cigarette commercials were kicked offline several years ago, the only marketing I've seen for e-cigarettes are point-of-sale ads in gas stations or tobacco shops.

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

#196

Post by eridius » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:38 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #178

eridius wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults like flavored nicotine too, but have you seen the ads? They're blatantly targeted at kids. Hell, I saw one once that showed a vape plugged into the USB port of a kid's laptop in class, where the advertising was basically saying your teacher won't know it's a vape.

Then BAN THE ADS!

Right, because intentionally designing a harmful product to appeal towards kids and get them hooked on nicotine is perfectly fine, just as long as we eventually crack down on the ads.

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

#197

Post by asdff » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #165

mullingitover wrote: post #26

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…

Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction alternative then it would be fine. But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing, getting kids hooked on nicotine that would have otherwise never touched a cigarette. Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware that people don't…

Where is it being marketed? I've never noticed a Juul ad before.

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

#198

Post by InitialLastName » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #185

scarface74 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This very much HN bubble thinking. In the grand scheme of things, a very small percentage of jobs are conducive for remote work.

Almost all office jobs could be remote only.

Sure, but office jobs are a fairly small portion of the overall workforce. Based on [0], it looks like the "Information", "Financial activities", "Professional and business services" and I'll assume 50% of "other" and the government jobs could be done remotely. I'm sure this is missing some jobs in the other categories, and there are certainly many, jobs in these categories that can't be done remotely, but so goes. That leaves [0] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...

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

#199

Post by kaycebasques » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:41 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #160

scottlegrand2 wrote: post #145

Seems ludicrous to ban vaping without banning smoking. I wouldn't ban either personally, but if you're going to ban one...

"Queers hate techies". I saw it spraypainted on the sidewalk a while back. Banning vaping and not tobacco keeps with the aesthetic of embracing tradition and rejecting technology. Ridiculous, but unsurprising.

The "queers hate techies" thing is all over. While walking down Valencia once and checking out ATA's window gallery, I got the impression that the vandalism might be coming from them. Or someone masquerading as ATA.

[1] http://www.atasite.org/

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

#200

Post by munk-a » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:41 PM UTC

qes wrote: post #106

munk-a wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 adoption rate of smoking among younger folks has spiked since flavoured e-cigs were introduced Are you calling vaping "smoking"? Because that would be disingenuous. Also you may as well just say "since e-cigs were introduced" since there was never a time that they weren't flavored.

I am calling it smoking, "vaping" is a euphemism that just recently entered the language in an effort to rebrand the action of smoking because being "a smoker" now has a negative connotation. "Smoking" has never been a literal description of that action - the literal description is "inhaling tobacco" which is still occurring. The fact that using e-cigarettes is viewed as a more healthy way for smokers to continue their habit sort of puts the nail in the coffin in terms of word meanings.