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

241–250 of 426 posts

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

#241

Post by Noos »

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…

This is the medical marijuana issue, where the harm reduction is being overshadowed by the recreational use. The thing is, cigarettes were heavily frowned upon, so new users weren't really doing them. Vaping isn't, and it seems to be catching on well beyond the need for weaning off cigarettes.

So now you have a new issue.

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

#242

Post by Noos »

zdragnar wrote: post #186
graphememes wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because kids love candy. Adults do too, but kids much more.

That's strange, I haven't seen any calls for bans for wine, wine coolers, candy flavored liquors, beers made with fruit such as lambics, etc. Kids under 16 aren't old enough to drive, and yet there are plenty of toys shaped like cars and trucks. Toy guns, movies involving gun violence without R ratings, saturday morning cartoons, television featuring people consuming alcohol, etc. All of the above can have just as ba…

I'm not sure they have been banned, but there used to be candy cigarettes, and Big League Chew is bubblegum that is patterned after chewing tobacco. Haven't seen either in a long time.

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

#243

Post by dang »

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!

Please don't use uppercase for emphasis.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

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

#244

Post by dang »

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.

Please don't be snarky.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#245

Post by tastygreenapple »

WalterSear wrote: post #119
tastygreenapple wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nicot…

> They are, however, still extremely addictive.

Isn't every stimulant? I'm reluctant to ban things on the basis of their addictive potential without considering the consequences of the addiction. I'm pretty sure at least half the people I know need coffee in the morning, but I don't think that means we should ban caffeine. I don't see nicotine as objectively better or worse than caffeine so it's unfortunate that one is the target of legislation and one flows like the manna from heaven in most gathers of people.

Additionally, I think there's a 'good' in letting people choose the stim that works best for them. I personally prefer amphetamine, others prefer coffee, some people find comfort in nicotine.

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

#246

Post by Noos »

komali2 wrote: post #122
scarface74 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be stopped. Because banning substances has worked so well in the past - see weed.

>see weed. I'm not sure what you mean by this, without further argument. Marijuana usage went up a couple percentage points in Colorado after legalization. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-viz-met-colorado-lega... Prohibition kinda works, kinda doesn't. I think it really depends. Banning something like alcohol that the vast majority of the population partakes in was very silly. Banning heroin? I'm not so sure i…

i think that if the legalized substance has strong sanctions and limits, it can work. Like smoking is legal, but disapproved, heavily taxed, and limited in public. If the sanctions don't or can't exist, legalization won't work in the long run.

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

#247

Post by GhostVII »

eridius wrote: post #224

So I dug up the actual ordinance itself¹ and it turns out to not be a "ban all e-cigarettes" ordinance. It is in fact "ban e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval". Which is to say, if the FDA actually does their job and approves the damn things, then they can be sold in SF again. ¹ https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...

That's a pretty significant part which was left out of the article. I mean it is effectively a ban right now since e-cigarettes don't have approval, but requiring FDA approval seems far more reasonable than a permanent ban.

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

#248

Post by baggy_trough »

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…

Some people believe in the notion that adults should make decisions for themselves.

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

#249

Post by hackinthebochs »

munk-a wrote: post #23
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…

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…

>but the adoption rate of smoking among younger folks has spiked since flavoured e-cigs were introduced.

People cite this as if its the end of the justification for legislative action. No, it's merely the beginning of the argument. So the rate of e-cig usage is growing rapidly among teens. Why should I care?

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

#250

Post by ben_jones »

At first I was against it, then I heard a rant from the local cornerstore about how e-ciggs were one of his best sellers and he was pissed and I realized it was probably a net good since it was both rabidly popular and really unhealthy. Sure, it's ironic cigarettes are still legal, but that doesn't mean we should stop passing marginally good laws.
Post reply on HN