Love SF, great move. Drugs and their addiction are not good for your health period.
San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
351–360 of 426 posts
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, because intentionally designing a harmful product to appeal towards kids and get them hooked on nicotine is perfectly fine, just as long as we eventually crack down on the ads.
Please don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is snark almost every story comment section. And derision and sarcasm and mockery. How is this comment so much worse that it uniquely deserves a rebuke?
This comment is really quite mild actually. Certainly not worthy of a moderator stepping up.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but teens apparently don't think regular cigarettes are (as) cool.
And forbidding something definitely makes it uncool amirite?
If you're claiming that forbidding e-cigs makes them cooler, then that might be a better overall outcome because the people who desperately want to be cool will migrate to the suddenly cooler illegal e-cigs.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is snark almost every story comment section. And derision and sarcasm and mockery. How is this comment so much worse that it uniquely deserves a rebuke? This comment is really quite mild actually. Certainly not worthy of a moderator stepping up.
People have different interpretations of these things. If you see a particularly bad comment that deserves moderation, we'd appreciate your letting us know about it.
Yes, there's far too much snark and derision on HN. It's an internet forum after all. Surely you're not suggesting we should do less about it?
The "how is this comment so much worse" objection is based on a fallacy. You don't not get a speeding ticket just because other cars were going faster.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#355Meanwhile you can buy vape cartridges of weed at any dispensary in SF. What makes no sense is SF is going to wait for the FDA to study ecig health effects while at the same time the FDA has made its position pretty clear on weed.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#356Earlier 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…
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…
I sense some unnecessary aggression in your post. Either way, 13.4% is pretty low. One would expect a rate about double that, if not a bit more.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#357Earlier 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.
so be it.
No non corporal entity is entitled to exploit any corporal entity.
If they exist at all they should serve all.
Profit is a share of the increased wealth created, not stealing what is because you are invulnerable, soulless and can.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is snark almost every story comment section. And derision and sarcasm and mockery. How is this comment so much worse that it uniquely deserves a rebuke? This comment is really quite mild actually. Certainly not worthy of a moderator stepping up.
Their brand of sarcasm is one of the most overused, obnoxious sorts of comment found on the internet.
"Oh, right, because !"
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been adopted massively by teenagers. That said, this is 100% showboating for the 'family friendly' schmoe vote. There is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent online purchases.
Legislation states bans on shipping to San Francisco addresses.
I know. It's unenforceable.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they are vastly less harmful than cigarettes. Anyone who says different is misled, or misleading. They are, however, still extremely addictive. Arguably more so than cigarettes, since they enable the consumption of much higher doses of nicotine. A friend once told me, having quit nicotine and heroin, that while quitting heroin was 'like being the living dead', he could probably go through it again, but not nicot…
> 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…