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

341–350 of 426 posts

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

#341

Post by lsiebert »

"After Donald Trump took office the next year, the agency said it would push back until 2022 a requirement that vape companies submit applications to continue selling their products. Once a product has FDA approval, the legislation would allow its sale in San Francisco again."

The city supes want e-cigs regulated by the FDA before they are sold, just like regular cigarettes are.

Just because FDA approval is not mandatory until 2022 does not mean that Juul can't submit an application for FDA approval now, if it wants to sell in SF.

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

#342

Post by lozaning »

slg wrote: post #146
lozaning wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the NPR program I heard last night, this is already the case in SF. Info for those interested here: https://harmreduction.org/issues/overdose-prevention/dope-sf...

They are providing a drug to treat overdoses which is an entirely different thing than a drug that is used to ease someone out of a chemical addiction. There are different priorities when someone is minutes from dying rather being addicted to a deadly substance that might take years to kill them.

Thank you for the correction, I hadn't realized that there were different drugs for different cases.

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

#343

Post by NeedMoreTea »

elhudy wrote: post #240
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much unheated air accompanying the vapour, through the air vents, that my recollection of vaping is it wasn't even warm. I'm sure there is a temperature difference after the vaporiser, but I never noticed it. Completely unlike smoking where you often noticed it was hot. Sounds like something for a Youtuber to measure. :) I never tried a Juul, just regular mods and vape pens if that makes a difference.

Interesting. I always thought hot air was the mechanism that causes a cough. Maybe it is just the lack of oxygen.

The proportion of VG and PG, vegetable glycerine and propylene glycol, decides how hard it is on the throat. Known as "throat hit" on vaping sites. More PG gives more throat hit - it feels harsher, and more chance of a cough, but fewer clouds. I used to prefer the high VG liquids as I thought the throat hit part of the bad of smoking that I wanted to quit.

Maybe some of the flavours have impact too, I don't know. One thing that is different is it's "just" a cough from immediate irritation. None of the horrible green and yellow crap coming up from a coughing fit next morning that you got from tobacco.

That's ignoring Juul which works differently, I have no idea what goes on in those.

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

#344

Post by strken »

kalleboo wrote: post #280
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…

> 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. When Alcopops gained prominence in Europe, there was a huge outrage and much talk of bans. In the US, the FTC has investigated the link between wine coolers and underage drinking several times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcopop

Australia raised the tax for alcopops in response to a rise in teen drinking, which was kind of stupid since teens moved to spirits and cask wine instead.

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

#345

Post by zdragnar »

robotron wrote: post #299
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 would love to see reaction vids of kids trying lambics. Pretty far stretch to compare those to candy-flavored anything.

Heh. Of all the examples I gave, lambics were probably the worst, but not by as much as you think.

Nicotine, like caffeine, has a bitter taste on its own. Ecigs are flavored in part to cover the taste. Lambics aren't fruit juice, ecigs and flavored chew aren't candy. No-one would ever mistake the two.

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

#346

Post by m0zg »

bdamm wrote: post #339
m0zg wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Why not Google? There are a lot of kids (including my son) addicted to YouTube. Why not Amazon? There are a lot people addicted to buying stuff they don't need.

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

#347

Post by baby »

rbg246 wrote: post #293
baby wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does not work.

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

#348

Post by zdragnar »

woodruffw wrote: post #310
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…

> 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...

Four loko was controversial because the caffeine and alcohol contents could easily make anyone sick.

Most telling is that the article you posted was entirely focused on college age adults, not teenagers. In fact, I didn't find any references at all to underage drinking as the reason why it was reformulated. Am I missing something?

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

#349

Post by hnzix »

seandougall wrote: post #266
mc32 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Hepatitis A, B and Swine Flu. You can literally buy little plastic condoms for your e-cigs. Don't pass that e-cig in the club kids.

On a different note, as someone who's used e-cigs to wean off cigarettes and eventually quit altogether, this ban is pants-on-head puritanical stupidity.

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

#350

Post by blkhawk »

huffmsa wrote: post #116
skyyler wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want needles for heroin distributed for free or do you want your tax dollars to be spent on treating easily preventable diseases because it's hard to obtain needles? Making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.

1. I'd prefer to spend my money as I see fit through charity. Bureaucrats didn't distribute mosquito nets across Africa, Bill and Melinda Gates did. 2. If the government is going to take my money, they should be spending it on treatment of the underlying issues. Not putting a bandaid on the needle diseases.

Well sometimes a Band-aid is the best solution to a problem absent a workable alternative.
Post reply on HN