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

321–330 of 426 posts

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

#321

Post by tjohns »

100100010001 wrote: post #274
nilkn wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't live in SF or even CA, I'll try to offer an explanation of why this might make sense based on what I've observed. I'm 29, which puts me sort of at the intersection of two age groups right now. I'm starting to be able to connect with older folks, and I can still connect with younger 20somethings. Nobody I know under 25 smokes cigarettes. Anecdotally, cigarettes in that age group are nearly universally ab…

I do live I the Bay Area and I know more people 21-25 who smoke cigarettes than vape. See... anecdotal evidence is easy to find a counterpoint to.

You got me curious, so started digging up sone actual data.

Here's some interesting public polls (Gallup): https://news.gallup.com/poll/237818/young-people-adopt-vapin...

According to their data, in the 18-29 demographic, 20% vape compared to 16% using traditional cigarettes.

And some analysis from the academic side: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/10/31/toba...

"There was a substantial increase in youth vaping prevalence beginning in about 2014. Time trend analyses showed that the decline in past 30-day smoking prevalence accelerated by two to four times after 2014. Indicators of more established smoking rates, including the proportion of daily smokers among past 30-day smokers, also decreased more rapidly as vaping became more prevalent...

The inverse relationship between vaping and smoking was robust across different data sets for both youth and young adults and for current and more established smoking. While trying electronic cigarettes may causally increase smoking among some youth, the aggregate effect at the population level appears to be negligible given the reduction in smoking initiation during the period of vaping’s ascendance."

So, it seems to be mixed. Certainly more younger folks vaping than using cigarettes, though it's roughly 55%/45%... and this might not have a strong impact on overall smoking rates.

(I'm actually surprised. I expected to see more vape use based on my own anecdotal observations!)

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

#322

Post by function_seven »

undersuit wrote: post #308
function_seven wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I guess I did, but I still wonder what company would advertise this way.

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

#324

Post by duskwuff »

drawkbox wrote: post #262
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) va…

> e-cigs/vaping leave no butts, no trash and are mostly devices people want to keep and reuse.

Most commercial e-cigs have some form of disposable component, ranging from the plastic pods used by Juul to some Blu-branded devices which are entirely one-time-use.

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

#326

Post by xmprt »

rsj_hn wrote: post #297
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.

So do you support banning smoking weed?

There's a difference between banning and criminalizing weed. You can support one without the other.

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

#327

Post by rbg246 »

stevenjohns wrote: post #320
rbg246 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing prices has (surprisingly, give it's price inelasticity) worked in decreasing smoking rates. Here is the evidence of the public health meaures: https://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.n...

I'm not a data scientist, but that downwards slope started twenty years before the 2010 tobacco excise and continuing to fall is a culmination of years upon years of education.

Absolutely, there are many reasons for decreasing smoking rates, it's a combination of strategies that have seen the decrease but one of those is increasing the price.

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

#328

Post by rsj_hn »

xmprt wrote: post #326
rsj_hn wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you support banning smoking weed?

There's a difference between banning and criminalizing weed. You can support one without the other.

1. What is the difference between banning and criminalizing? You are going to use the power of the state to punish someone that does not obey your ban, right? Is it about fines versus jail time?

2. Do you support SF treating weed the same as e-cigs?

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

#329

Post by conanbatt »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #204
conanbatt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are muscling Juul for money. They don't want another Uber incident where they don't get any cash. SF City is one of the most corrupt institutions I know.

Soliciting a bribe?

A "Salesforce voluntary Contribution" to the Transit center.

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

#330

Post by novia »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #62
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.

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(?)

> How are they sold? In Australia they have the gory death warnings

I was just in a vape shop in the American south for the first time a few days ago.

They are presented as technological marvels. No noticable gory death warnings.

There are several different vape models out in the store center plugged in for you to try out. Everything is extremely clean and shiny, it basically looks like an Apple store. The juice is kept behind the counter in bottles that are backlit with a pleasant blue light [1]. The store is also lit from above by those lightbulbs that have the vintage looking exposed thick filaments [2].

Everything about the store screams, "This is healthy, this is the future, this is cool"

The actual vapes available for sale are locked in a display cabinet, making it feel as if they are as valuable and desirable as jewelery. Behind the counter is a counterculture looking person with guages and tattoos and a laid-back but professional attitude.

Completely different from a typical tobacco store.

There are also ads out on the counter about CBD oil and how it's totally not illegal, so you should definitely give it a try.

I'd imagine the presentation is much the same in California.

[1]: https://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/YNiG2iB_3prcuo0araZY...

[2]: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0903/0788/products/Thomas_...

Post reply on HN