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

291–300 of 426 posts

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

#291

Post by ceejayoz »

refurb wrote: post #286
ceejayoz wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite simple. Not smoking at all > vaping > cigarettes. Massive progress has been made in getting kids not to take up smoking. If you're a smoker, switching to vaping is a good thing. If you're not, it's a bad thing.

This reminds me of the right wing stance on sex education. Abstinence > safe sex > unsafe sex Yes, the first is desirable, but let’s be serious, it’s not a reasonable goal for most people.

That's a silly comparison.

Smoking's been in a very successful decades-long decline due to public policy interventions. "Not smoking" is an entirely reasonable goal for most people.

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

#292

Post by ceejayoz »

refurb wrote: post #289
ceejayoz wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.voanews.com/science-health/us-youth-smoking-decl... > For decades, the percentage of high school and middle school students who smoked cigarettes had been declining. For the past three years, it has flattened, according to new numbers released Monday. There may be several reasons, but a recent boom in vaping is the most likely explanation, said Brian King of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That source says nothing about public health. Your assumption is vaping = worse public health.

No, my assumption is "interrupting the decline in smoking = worse public health".

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

#293

Post by rbg246 »

baby wrote: post #85
quickthrower2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they sold? In Australia they have the gory death warnings, are sold in cabinets with no logos (just a plain font list of brand names) and are ridiculously expensive $40 for 20. Cigars might be an exception(?)

The gory death warnings are the most useless counter measure I’ve seen. We have them all over in France and they have no effect. They have no effect because people still think it’s cool to smoke.

The point of the gory death warnings is to stop new smokers from starting, to making smoking as unattractive as possible.

Smokers become desensitised to the warnings really quickly from looking at them every time they smoke.

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

#294

Post by nemo44x »

munk-a wrote: post #12
kart23 wrote: post #5

So all these people hooked on juul are gonna switch to real cigs. Nice.

Sure but... it's sort of crazy that juul has been allowed to get a whole new generation of folks hooked on tobacco. There's been a myth spread around that e-cigs exist solely as a more healthy alternative to traditional cigs - they are more healthy but those candy flavours have resulted in my office now having more smokers in it than ever before... and they're all under 23.

So called “candy flavors” attracting kids is problematic as a hypothesis for a few reasons. One is adults enjoy them. Secondly, for well over a century teenagers smoked cigarettes that were not candy flavored. They don’t care what the flavor is. Nicotine feels good.

Should we ban sweet alcoholic drinks?

I remember when it was the Republican Party that went to the “what about the kids?!” well to justify asinine legislation and laws.

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

#295

Post by 013a »

joshanderson wrote: post #82
mattoxic wrote: post #34

I hate cigarettes, I hate the litter, the smell, and the smokers' belief that they have the divine right to pollute my airspace. I also hate the taxes I spend on keeping them in hospital - but. E cigarettes don't cause litter, the smoke is far less offensive. If people are going to smoke they will smoke. SF would be far better off banning actual cigarettes.

Ecigs cause tons of litter from the refill cartridges and from the batteries. Ecigs are much worse of a pollution problem than actual cigarettes.

The, uh, reuseable and rechargeable batteries?

You're gonna have to source that claim, because that's insane to suggest. The pods are definitely bad for the environment, but relatively speaking when compared to, say, large-sized McDonalds cups or the dozens of cigarette butts a smoker may go through in a single day, one little 2cm by 2cm piece of plastic every few days doesn't seem like it should be top-of-mind.

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

#296

Post by tanseydavid »

renlo wrote: post #126
slg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support methadone being freely available over the counter? After all, it is a valuable tool in helping get people off more dangerous opioids.

methadone and vaping, while both used for cessation, are not comparable

It was an analogy and you are leaving half of the analogy out of consideration.

The analogy was not a comparison of methadone and vaping.

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

#297

Post by rsj_hn »

ceejayoz wrote: post #279
drawkbox wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) va…

It's quite simple. Not smoking at all > vaping > cigarettes. Massive progress has been made in getting kids not to take up smoking. If you're a smoker, switching to vaping is a good thing. If you're not, it's a bad thing.

So do you support banning smoking weed?

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

#298

Post by 013a »

Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like San Francisco.

I have a friend who's 80 year old grandmother was addicted to cigarettes. He wanted to buy her an ecigarette for christmas to help her quit, even though he subtly felt like it may be for naught given her age and how long she had been addicted. I suggested a Juul just because of how easy it is to operate and the high nicotine content, given its targeted toward people trying to quit.

A few months ago he showed me a picture of her "empty pod drawer". She didn't want to throw out the pods because she was hoping there was a way to recycle them. There were probably a hundred. She doesn't smoke anymore.

Maybe, in the worldview of the officials, no one would consume nicotine. That isn't the world we live in; in the world we live in, these city officials are simply indirectly responsible for the premature deaths of thousands of people. Moreover, I don't even know if that's a world we should be idealizing, in the same way I don't know if a world without alcohol or caffeine or tylenol would be more ideal than the one we have. Just to start thinking about it: nicotine is a nootropic, and recreation is definitely great for your productivity and wellbeing. There aren't zero positives to the chemical.

Its mostly just sad to see addiction so continually demonized in our society. We want to point blame, and then push it out of our minds like it doesn't exist. And in the case of these city officials; literally push it out of their city. I can only hope that, one day, the people who run that very strange city start the process of learning to treat other people with the love and care we all deserve.

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

#299

Post by robotron »

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 would love to see reaction vids of kids trying lambics. Pretty far stretch to compare those to candy-flavored anything.

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

#300

Post by alexmat »

dvtrn wrote: post #285
tastygreenapple wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I've always kind of pondered why so many things get banned or receive strong, moralizing scrutiny under the auspices of "addiction" while coffee/caffeine remains the uncontested king of addicting commoditized chemical compounds. Open mind here, but can someone elucidate this to me? It came up once in a rather intense discussion with my father in my teens once I discovered the devil's lettuce (cannabis) and my curiosi…

Social class divisions. Vaping is seen as lower class. Coffee has always been a white collar stimulant. Weed is becoming more upscale and thus more accepted. Meth and crack are for poor white and black people. Cocaine is for bankers and trendsetters so it tends to have lighter sentences and lenient enforcement. Alcohol depends on the form it takes, wine vs four loko.
Post reply on HN