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

331–340 of 426 posts

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

#331

Post by dkbrk »

lovecg wrote: post #109
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.

Btw, it’s counterintuitive and morbid to think about, but the healthcare and other public spending is actually less for smokers than nonsmokers on average: they tend to die right around retirement age before social security and expensive healthcare is needed. See e.g. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1210319

There's a classic (and very funny) scene in Yes Prime Minister with this exact argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB-WCX6ndow&feature=youtu.be...

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

#332

Post by unethical_ban »

nilkn wrote: post #183
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.

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…

Or what must also be considered: Personal choice in doing something irresponsible. Alcohol is clearly a mental and physical destructive force when abused, and is probably worse for you than nicotine addiction. E-Cigarettes are bad, but not nearly so as cigarettes.

This is just truly absurd. For some reason I thought maybe it meant the use of vapes indoors or something similar, but the entire sale? Fucking overbearing politicians. This kind of hypocritical action makes progressives look bad.

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

#333

Post by RodgerTheGreat »

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.

Living in New York, I see littered Juul cartridges constantly- on the sidewalks, in windowsills, crushed in the street- and I get sprayed with other people's second-hand vaping while walking to work at least as often as with cigarette smoke. As a bystander, I'm hard-pressed to find E-Cigs any less irritating than ordinary smoking.

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

#334

Post by eweise »

mullingitover wrote: post #84
eweise wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lumped all tobacco products together when really there is a specific problem with kids purchasing e-cigarettes. If cigarette rates were spiking in the same manner then maybe they would need further restrictions.

The point still stands. It's like if you knew liquor stores would just break the law and sell alcohol to anyone who could see over the counter, and you won't do anything to stop them...instead your response is to ban only beer. The (wholly unfounded by extant evidence)theory is that substantial numbers of teens who vape are going to move on to the more harmful cigarettes, and so e-cigarettes should be discouraged. Gr…

You don't get it maybe because you don't have kids. e-cigarettes have a different appeal than smoking. Cigarettes are what your parents did and its not cool at all. Vaping with all the different flavors and drugs you can inhale, is all the rage. Its very hard to for schools to control because there is no real smoke and can be hidden easily. I have kids in high school and middle school and they both report lots of vaping on the bus and campus. They don't see anyone smoking cigarettes. SF cracks down on a problem. Makes perfect sense.

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

#335

Post by karthikb »

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.

> the smoke is far less offensive

Because of this belief by vapers, in my experience they tend to be more indiscriminate about where they puff and exhale...the end result is far more exposure to second-hand vape than second hand cigarette smoke.

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

#336

Post by my_usernam3 »

ramphastidae wrote: post #268
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…

I disagree with your comparison of fruity e-cigs to candy versions of tobacco products.

One is a 18+ only product (or 21+ in California) the other is in candy stores kids frequent and purchase. One is heavily restricted on advertising ESPECIALLY to youth, the other isn't (or wasn't, I don't know the current rules of big league chew).

Fruity e-cigs are made for adults, purchased by adults, advertised to adults, and are illegally obtained by teens. Candy cigerettes, and big league chew is made for kids, purchasable by kids, advertised to kids, all hoping to later get them addicted to the products they actually represent.

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

#337

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#338

Post by ryanobjc »

nilkn wrote: post #183
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.

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…

13.4% of San Francisco is under 18 years of age. And over 65s are 15.7%.

It’s entirely reasonable to take regulatory steps to protect younger persons. Habits ingrained now last a lifetime - that’s why Juul is fighting this - a new generation of consumers is at risk of not having access to their product. Other cities and states are watching this play out.

By the way, just because you don’t see a lot of kids where you hang out, believe me there are tons of kids here. I have one. We live in San Francisco. There is a robust parent community here. You may not see it if you aren’t looking for it. For example, did you know there’s a large playground at ... mission Dolores park? And if you and your childless friends decided it was a fun place to play, you will get asked to leave. Possibly by the police.

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

#339

Post by bdamm »

m0zg wrote: post #307
jasonhansel wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed; Facebook, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Lays, Twitter, CNN, Fox, Disney, and Purdue are all examples of companies that are taking advantage of people's reward path in a basically addictive way. Maybe 95% in terms of aggregate profit.

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

#340

Post by p1mrx »

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?

I think education would work better than banning. The "vaping > smoking" comparison is even more apt for weed, because it can be vaped in its natural form, whereas nicotine needs additives like propylene glycol.

(That said, kids should avoid weed in any form, since it's known to affect brain development.)

Post reply on HN