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

301–310 of 426 posts

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

#301

Post by tanseydavid »

almost_usual wrote: post #232
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 be…

"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."

Surely you must be exaggerating? How quickly do you cover 5 miles hiking? How quickly do you eat lunch for that matter?

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

#302

Post by jasonhansel »

013a wrote: post #298

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…

We shouldn't penalize addiction. But we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit.

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

#303

Post by mdhen »

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.

What Australia does that other countries don't do in terms of packaging is they completely block out the branding of a pack. So like in Thailand for instance you'll have a regular Marlboro pack with a picture on the back of diseased lungs or whatever. In Australia they block out the designs of packs branding so they're just dark brown with health warnings and in white text somewhere they'll say Marlboro lights or whatever they are.

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

#304

Post by brokenmachine »

tanakachen wrote: post #208
jasonhansel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Secondhand smoke kills hundreds of thousands of non-smokers every year.

That's well beyond personal liberty.

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

#305

Post by JamesBarney »

ladberg wrote: post #161
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…

You can get zero nicotine, but not everyone does. I know a few people who accidentally got themselves addicted to nicotine by vaping too much without really thinking of the consequences.

Your friend didn't know nicotine was addictive?

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

#306

Post by on_and_off »

Good.

I got a recruiting email from Juul a couple of weeks ago : "Help power the movement to end cigarette-related deaths!"

That's bullshit. From all the stats I have seen so far (and to be fair, since I don't smoke, it is not a subject I follow very closely), e-cigarettes are on track to negate all the progress made on young smokers.

A good proportion of the teens that start vaping and go on to start smoking cigarettes would not have started smoking without juul.

And before somebody starts claiming that Juul has zero responsability there, Juul is also paying social influencer directly targetting teens.

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

#307

Post by m0zg »

jasonhansel wrote: post #302
013a wrote: post #298

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…

We shouldn't penalize addiction. But we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit.

>> should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit

You just sighed a death warrant to HN, and 95% of all corporations that make a profit.

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

#308

Post by undersuit »

function_seven wrote: post #261
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.

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.

Who mentioned Juul?

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

#309

Post by undersuit »

sitkack wrote: post #277
phil248 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but adults also really like candy flavors. Should we no longer be permitted by the state to drink mojitos or Moscow mules because they also happen to be delicious? You also did not provide a response to the text you quoted. Why does having kids, or knowing that they like candy flavors, mean that all flavored things are aimed at children?

> mojitos or Moscow mules When kids start demanding moscow mules, I'll give them a free copper cup.

And take it away when they want cotton candy flavored gin.

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

#310

Post by woodruffw »

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…

> 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.

I'm young enough to remember caffeinated Four Loko being popular in high school. And yes, they were banned/reformulated on exactly the same premise: that they targeted underage consumption[1].

[1]: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2009-08-24-090823...

Post reply on HN