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

231–240 of 426 posts

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

#231

Post by opportune »

InitialLastName wrote: post #198
opportune wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

I would say ~30% is not "fairly small". Also that 30% predominately works circa 9-5 and is disproportionately responsible for traffic congestion.

Plus, it's unclear how those industries get split. For example utilities, trade, healthcare, and leisure/hospitality all have a large number of office jobs. And cities have a higher concentration of office jobs than rural areas. I would be willing to bet that in most medium-large sized cities, half of all jobs could be done remotely.

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

#232

Post by almost_usual »

dannykwells wrote: post #113

I 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.

>SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing

The city is attempting to address this very complicated problem and invest in shelters / affordable housing. A lot of wealthy home owners protest when they attempt to build housing for the poor (in their backyard). I'd argue the homeless problem in SF is more of a national / United States issue than SF specifically.

>Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago

I haven't been to Chicago in like half a decade but I don't think the roads in SF are terrible?

>Horrendous traffic? Do nothing

Traffic isn't bad unless you spend all of your time commuting in the East Bay, the Peninsula, or you pick terrible driving times on the weekend. During the work week the traffic within the city outside of FiDi is usually fine (which is most of the city). Outside of SF proper traffic is definitely pretty bad though, especially in the East Bay.

I can usually leave on a Saturday at 8am, get to upper North Bay (Novato, etc), crank out a 5+ mile hike, grab lunch, and be back at home by 11:30am without hitting any traffic. People who decide to sleep in and leave at 11am definitely hit a ton of traffic (because that's a terrible driving time).

>Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.

I don't really get it, I imagine it's more of a jab towards Juul than anything else.

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

#233

Post by eridius »

driverdan wrote: post #221
eridius wrote: post #165

Earlier 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…

You'd prefer tobacco smoke to vaping?? That's what the result of this will be. Let's assume what you say is correct, that they're marketing it for kids. The correct action isn't to ban it, it's to ban the marketing.

According to the actual ordinance itself¹, according to a 2018 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, there's moderate evidence that e-cigarette use actually increases the frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking in the future.

Also, SF did in fact ban flavored tobacco products last year, but it seems that wasn't sufficient to combat the rise in e-cigarette usage among SF high school students.

In any case, it seems the ordinance doesn't actually ban e-cigarettes. It bans e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval, which is required by law for any new tobacco product. So basically, the city is saying the FDA isn't doing their job, and so the product that shouldn't be allowed to be sold in general without this approval is now banned in SF until it receives this approval.

¹https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...

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

#234

Post by driverdan »

jdhn wrote: post #75

This just screams of a moral panic that's no different from when Congress held hearings about how violent music lyrics or violent video games were corrupting the youth.

It's worse because music lyrics are protected speech and can't be banned.

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

#235

Post by zdragnar »

eridius wrote: post #196
e40 wrote: post #178

Earlier 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.

You know what's less conspicuous than a vape pen hooked into your computer in class? A pack of smokes and a lighter in your pocket. I dont see the allure to children... College kids, maybe.

Also, when did non-college-age children get allowed laptops in class? We werent even allowed to have a cell phone on our person during school hours, let alone a laptop.

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

#236

Post by oarabbus_ »

munk-a wrote: post #173
oarabbus_ wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's play devil's advocate. Where's the proof that e-cigarettes are harmful? We have mountains of evidence that cigarettes are one of the most harmful habits one can do. Do we have proof e-cigs cause lung cancer, or other types of cancer? COPD? asthma? no, we do not. edit: people seem to be very downvote-happy on this site when they disagree with something. Combustion of tobacco produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocar…

Can I devil's devil's advocate - various players in the tobacco industry carried out a long PR campaign trying to downplay the health effects of smoking after being internally aware of them so... maybe let's wait to see if this new way to inhale tobacco is safe before accepting the word of tobacco industry participants again? This is going by the old "Fool me once shame on you, falsely convince me that tobacco produc…

Combustion of tobacco produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) which are heavily carcinogenic. Vaporization of nicotine does NOT produce these compounds.

I'm not claiming e-cigs are _good_ for you, but greater harm than, say, soda and junk food, has not been proven.

The UK government claims they are 95% less harmful than cigarettes: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/vaping-quit-smokin...

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

#237

Post by NeedMoreTea »

elhudy wrote: post #229
natermer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think that this is a accurate statement at all. There are a few dangers to vaping. The biggest one is having a vaporizer that is malfunctioning and is burning things instead of heating them up. The complex chemical reactions are difficult to predict. But it has the side effect of tasting like shit. The second biggest danger is the flavorings. However the community has been very good at self-policing an…

Wouldn't regularly functioning vapes be a danger to your lungs simply due to the heated air? I.e. at what temperature does vapor become dangerous?

There's so much unheated air accompanying the vapour, through the air vents, that my recollection of vaping is it wasn't even warm. I'm sure there is a temperature difference after the vaporiser, but I never noticed it. Completely unlike smoking where you often noticed it was hot.

Sounds like something for a Youtuber to measure. :)

I never tried a Juul, just regular mods and vape pens if that makes a difference.

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

#238

Post by oarabbus_ »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #171
oarabbus_ wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's play devil's advocate. Where's the proof that e-cigarettes are harmful? We have mountains of evidence that cigarettes are one of the most harmful habits one can do. Do we have proof e-cigs cause lung cancer, or other types of cancer? COPD? asthma? no, we do not. edit: people seem to be very downvote-happy on this site when they disagree with something. Combustion of tobacco produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocar…

"The nicotine in e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes is addictive. E-cigarettes are considered tobacco products because most of them contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Besides nicotine, e-cigarettes can contain harmful and potentially harmful ingredients, including: >ultrafine particles that can be inhaled deep into the lungs >flavorants such as diacetyl, a chemical linked to serious lung disease >volatile o…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/vaping-quit-smokin...

UK government claims ecigs are far, far less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.

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

#239

Post by KerrickStaley »

Some background:

The specific ordinance (#190312) that passed is covered on this page: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574...

That page links to this video of the discussion last week on the measure (no video yet from today's meeting): http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=1...

The ordinance just passed the Board of Supervisors and will need to be signed by Mayor London Breed to go into effect.

There are no minutes from today's Board of Supervisors meeting posted yet, but you can see from last week's minutes that the ordinance has support from all 11 members of the board: https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf

If you want to comment on this legislation, I think the best way at this point is to contact London Breed's office by calling (415) 554-6141 or emailing MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org. Again, the mayor has to sign the legislation before it becomes law.

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

#240

Post by elhudy »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #237
elhudy wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't regularly functioning vapes be a danger to your lungs simply due to the heated air? I.e. at what temperature does vapor become dangerous?

There's so much unheated air accompanying the vapour, through the air vents, that my recollection of vaping is it wasn't even warm. I'm sure there is a temperature difference after the vaporiser, but I never noticed it. Completely unlike smoking where you often noticed it was hot. Sounds like something for a Youtuber to measure. :) I never tried a Juul, just regular mods and vape pens if that makes a difference.

Interesting. I always thought hot air was the mechanism that causes a cough. Maybe it is just the lack of oxygen.
Post reply on HN