Good, this some Joe Camel all over again.
San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
201–210 of 426 posts
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#202Sigh... with all the real and urgent problems the city (homelessness, housing shortage, vehicle break-ins, etc.) has they somehow have time to enact garbage laws.
We need new blood in our city government.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#203All 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…
"having less kids and many less adults smoking cigarettes is such a huge win for public health."
It's not about quitting anymore though. It's way beyond that.
Vaping is incredibly addictive, and because it's 'not smoking' and Juul is marketing it as 'cool' - it's massively taking over.
While vaping is obviously better than smoking, it has odd side effects due to the fact it's not, for example, I found myself vaping all the time, as opposed to just 'smoke breaks'.
Understand a few things:
1) Marketing works 2) Trends are real 3) Young people are very impressionable 4) The earlier addiction happens, the more life-long issues it causes 5) Critical masses are real: 5 kids in a high school doing it may not flip the school, but 25 might be enough and flip it into 1/2 the school 6) Supply and Demand is real. Make things harder to get, more expensive, higher barriers, the less people do it, the less likely there is to be a 'tipping point' collective behaviour.
I don't think they should have banned it, but they should totally ban all forms of advertising and promotion, there should be relatively high taxes on it, health warnings, and they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a school. At least if the kids can go all day without vaping, they might not fall into a hole.
In Canada, vaping among teenagers has increased 75% in one year this is quite a substantial thing to worry about. [1]
[1] http://www.cancer.ca/en/about-us/for-media/media-releases/na...
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#204Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#205Earlier 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…
I work with someone who's crusaded against e-cigs and part of the reason the ban was put in place was that JUUL was making kid-desired flavors like "candy corn" and "unicorn milk". E-cigs are essentially a very addictive substance (Nicotine) and a bunch of unregulated (and unreported) substances + flavor. They're also disguised as usb-keys and hard to detect (not like a cigarette). I'm sure SF lobbied with JUUL befor…
I vape, used to smoke 20 a day quit for 7 years, started again and then switched to a vape.
JUUL absolutely should be banned from marketing at children, it’s blatantly obvious they know what they are doing.
I’m generally not in favour of legislation because it often either doesn’t work or has bad 2nd order effects but this is one of those cases I’d make an exception for.
Over here in the UK they limited the max strength of vape fluid to 18mg (previously 24mg was common) and reduced the max tank size (I kept my old one as the they are where interchangeable).
It remains to be seen what effect if any that has though.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#206The real reason this ban is good is because e-cigarettes cause lots of plastic (cartridge) and battery pollution. Regular cigarettes believe it or not are not as bad for the environment (even the filters break down after a while).
I don’t think this health issue really matters because if someone is addicted to smoking regular cigarettes that only affects them. Pollution from e-cigarettes on the other hand is bad for everyone, even the non-smokers.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How is it designed to appeal towards kids? It's just good design that's dirt simple and works. If you look at their previous product, the pax, it's right in line with their design language and philosophy.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#208Earlier 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 -…
Furthermore, the fact that they are so addictive is (in itself) a reason to tightly regulate them.
Not really. If you decide to smoke then that’s a personal decision. The bigger problem is littering from spent e-cigarette cartridges and batteries. That is a problem that affects smokers and non smokers alike. So the ban is a good idea, but unrelated to any health issues.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Some time ago the MUNI stations in SF were absolutely plastered with these ads.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to drive out the homeless How nice of you to think of the homeless too. Where do you want to drive them to?
Actually I think that substance abuse (cigs, alcohol, heroin, etc.) is the reason why many of them are homeless to begin with. The right thing to do for them would be to medically cure their addiction, thereby making them capable of helping themselves. This is hard to accept for those who don't know how to cheaply and sustainably treat addictions.
Not just addiction, a significant chunk of homeless prople have a mental illness that isn’t been addressed.
Given the way healthcare works in America (or doesn’t as the case may be) I’m curious how that could be addressed.