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

261–270 of 426 posts

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

#261

Post by function_seven »

eridius wrote: post #169
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…

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.

Where did you see this ad? You sure it wasn’t a PSA?

Juul has never even hinted at teenage use of their product. They’re fanatically trying to position themselves as a “switch” product for smokers.

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

#262

Post by drawkbox »

pigscantfly wrote: post #7

This is perverse given that tobacco cigarettes are still widely available. I can't remember the last time I was actually satisfied with a decision from the Board of Supervisors.

I don't entirely understand the attacks on e-cigs and vaping.

1) e-cigs/vaping is safer with less carcinogens going into lungs. That will lead to less health issues down the line. Even if kids are getting them, which they shouldn't because it is sold in an age limited regulated market, it is still safer than cigarettes and a regulated market with good production is always safer than an unregulated black market.

2) vaping/e-cigs don't combust, so there is no fire, which almost cuts out the threat of a fire starting completely unless a battery explodes which is very rare. A burning cigarette falling will continue to burn by design every single time.

3) e-cigs/vaping leave no butts, no trash and are mostly devices people want to keep and reuse. Reusability and no pollution are what e-cigs/vaping bring. Cigarette butts are the single greatest source of ocean pollution [1], and next to gum, all over all the time.

Prohibitions and illegality of substances a certain percentage of people will always use, make these areas more dangerous in use/production and make harm reduction much more difficult.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigar...

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

#263

Post by sureaboutthis »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #238
sureaboutthis wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

"...some water vapour on it and very slight discolouration from the colouring in the e-liquid."

"Research estimates that, while not risk-free..."

Less harmful but harmful nonetheless. Not without risk. Contaminants and other unnatural elements are introduced into the lungs.

Vaping is harmful, too.

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

#264

Post by Judson »

Noos wrote: post #242
zdragnar wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Big league chew is still a thing.

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

#265

Post by oarabbus_ »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #263
oarabbus_ wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/vaping-quit-smokin... UK government claims ecigs are far, far less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.

"...some water vapour on it and very slight discolouration from the colouring in the e-liquid." "Research estimates that, while not risk-free..." Less harmful but harmful nonetheless. Not without risk. Contaminants and other unnatural elements are introduced into the lungs. Vaping is harmful, too.

Eh, you'd need to show me some evidence that e-cigs are more unhealthy than drinking soda, or the exhaust in a big city. Standing in the sunlight is also harmful; want to ban that?

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

#266

Post by seandougall »

mc32 wrote: post #255
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’m for regulating this as stringently as for regular cigs... but it’s weird... they don’t bother addicts injecting, they provide needles and let them shoot up, no problem. But you wanna vape? Nah! If they think banning is a solution to vaping and it’ll be successful, why not ban syringes —I’m sure they’re equally effective.

There’s a public health reason for that. How many people have ever contracted HIV from a used e-cigarette?

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

#267

Post by scarface74 »

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 meant just the opposite. Keeping weed illegal didn’t affect the usage. If it only went up a couple of percentage points that implies that anyone who wanted it, was easily able to get it and it being illegal wasn’t a deterrent.

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

#268

Post by ramphastidae »

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.

Candy cigarettes. Big League Chew. And now e-cigarettes. It's common (and now scientifically documented) knowledge that tobacco companies have used these types of flavors and products to target young smokers. There is decades of evidence and little reason to believe it won't continue.

Whether it's 'fair' to adults in terms of how many flavors they have access to is up for debate but the lawmakers' reasoning is sound.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118335/

> Advocates of public health care consider candy cigarettes (cigarette sweets) one example of the way in which international trademark or copyright laws are violated to promote tobacco products to children.1,2 People with vested interests in confectionery and tobacco have denied these claims and argued that restrictions on confectionery resembling tobacco products are unnecessary. We review recently available documents from the tobacco industry, which describe cooperation between the manufacturers of tobacco and candy cigarettes, ineffectual trademark enforcement, evidence that candy cigarettes may promote smoking, suppression of unfavourable findings from research sponsored by the confectionery industry, and successful attempts to avoid legislation or regulation.

> Summary points

> * Candy products that mimic packaging of tobacco brands may promote smoking in young people

> * Executives of both the tobacco and confectionery industries have regarded candy cigarettes as good advertising to future smokers

> * Some tobacco companies granted confectioners permission to use cigarette pack designs and tolerated trademark infringement

> * Children who have used candy cigarettes are more likely to become smokers

> * Unfavourable research sponsored by the US candy cigarette industry was suppressed

> * Elimination of candy cigarettes and other confectionery resembling tobacco products may help achieve public health goals of reducing tobacco use in young people

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

#269

Post by schoen »

pandaman wrote: post #260
pochamago wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may have been tricked, I'm pretty sure there's no official Juul ad like that

It looks like one of the California anti- vaping ads, those feature tons of kids vaping everywhere.

I remember a concern from some decades ago of whether anti-drug ads were received by certain audiences as an encouragement to use drugs (though every kind of advertising could have impacts that its creator didn't intend).

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

#270

Post by olleromam91 »

WalterSear wrote: post #132
kaycebasques wrote: post #36

The HN response seems strongly negative so far. Can someone educated in the space play devil’s advocate and share ideas on why it might be a good move?

It's been adopted massively by teenagers. That said, this is 100% showboating for the 'family friendly' schmoe vote. There is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent online purchases.

Legislation states bans on shipping to San Francisco addresses.
Post reply on HN