San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by ryanmercer » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 12:32 PM UTC

tastygreenapple wrote: post #31

munk-a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is somewhat justified, smoking rates were decreasing nationally until e-cigs came into fashion, of course some conventional smokers switched which lowered the health detriments of smoking - but many more of the e-cig users are new smokers. I'd prefer a full ban but this is at least staunching what was a regression for public health. E-cigarettes, since their introduction, haven't improved public health -…

I thought the health effects of e-cigs were relatively benign? I know it's common to consider the health profile of a substance with 'no substance' as the basis of comparison, but people seem to like stimulation and get it however they can. I don't like e-cigs, but I imagine they have to be one of the least harmful ways of getting stimulated. Is there a safer stimulant and do you think this ban will encourage people…

>I thought the health effects of e-cigs were relatively benign?

As far as we know. However, I've got a gut instinct that coating your lungs with flavor additives and propylene glycol or glycerin probably isn't the healthiest thing to do.

Then the atomizer, cheaper ones basically use a piece of steel wool. If you let that variety get mostly dry and still puff away (this was more of an issue a decade ago when they were newer and people had 'drip tips' before all these tanks and battery mods caught on) you absolutely start to get metal fumes which are often quite hazardous to your health.

We have zero long term studies on coating your lungs with this stuff, it may be relatively benign or we may see in 5, 10, 20 years people developing some crazy sort of lung disease.

It's also far more easier to give yourself nicotine poisoning vaping than it is via cigarettes as you can sit there and just constantly puff away because you've got blueberry soda, brownie, super duper wacky fun fruity pebbles bubble gum, etc flavors.

I know people that will vape through ten plus ml a day because they are just constantly puffing away due to the flavor and the nicotine. His 'rig' is effectively permanently attached to his hand and he carries around multiple large batteries in a man-clutch with a few extra tanks. I'm betting he's not alone, in the minority sure but there are likely a lot like him and having your lungs saturated 18 hours a day in nicotine, dye and flavoring agent can not be good.

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

#372

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 12:34 PM UTC

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 support legal medical marijuana, and decriminalization of recreational.

When vaping is discovered to have medical benefits, I'll happily change my stance on it. (I'd be happy to have vaping be prescription-only for smoking cessation, in a similar regulatory regime as many states' medical marijuana programs.)

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

#373

Post by EvanWinget » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 12:34 PM UTC

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.

This is definitely true for a lot of the major consumer facing software companies.

"Sean Parker, the 38-year-old founding president of Facebook, recently admitted that the social network was founded not to unite us, but to distract us. “The thought process was: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’” he said at an event in Philadelphia in November. To achieve this goal, Facebook’s architects exploited a “vulnerability in human psychology”, explained Parker, who resigned from the company in 2005. Whenever someone likes or comments on a post or photograph, he said, “we… give you a little dopamine hit”. Facebook is an empire of empires, then, built upon a molecule."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopam...

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

#374

Post by 013a » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 12:39 PM UTC

conanbatt wrote: post #365

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…

In the world of the officials, Juul pays them generously to run "addiction relief programs" that run into the 100's of millions every year.

For the oh-so-dangerous drug called Nicotine.

I've first-hand seen the effects this Killer Drug has on the poor people caught in its grasp. One time, we were at dinner, and my friend stepped outside for five minutes for a vape. I've seen lost souls on so much nicotine, their focus is heightened significantly and they get this almost imperceptible shake in their hands, someone not even looking for it might not notice it but it must be devastating for them. Have you ever been so wasted drunk, then used nicotine to level out and pivot back toward functionality? I haven't, thank the lord.

All of this, and these poor people are also forced into paying Big Juul dozens of dollars a month. I mean, a Juul pod costs about $3, imagine if a coffee from Starbucks or a soda were to cost that much!

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

#375

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 12:42 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#376

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

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

#377

Post by ezoe » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 1:23 PM UTC

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…

When one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the violation of other's right.

I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my right.

If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action must be forbidden for protecting the other's right.

So, in this case, the right to smoke shall be allowed in the condition in which my right of no inhaling it shall be honored.

Now, if you don't have a level 3 biohazard facility, you shall not be allowed to smoke.

My right is constantly violated almost everyday.

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

#378

Post by zdragnar » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

ryanmercer wrote: post #364

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. 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 can think of a dozen people off the top of my head that regularly smoke but say "it's not smoking, it's just hookah, it's a social thing". I gua…

You can get those same vape flavors without nicotine, too. They go down quite a bit easier, too.

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

#379

Post by dannykwells » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

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…

You are wrong here. California has the worst homelessness problem in the country, and SF is leading within California. It is just not a national issue. I travel for work...no where is like SF for homeless. Chicago, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, NYC, DC,... nothing.

Roads: down town is like a warzone! Huge potholes everywhere.

Traffic...ummm, east bay/south bay are where most people live. Also traffic in the city is terrible too. Your Saturday routine sounds like you don't leave Marin...which sure, yeah, not a ton of traffic.

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

#380

Post by 013a » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

ezoe wrote: post #377

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…

When one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the violation of other's right. I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my right. If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action must be forbidden for protecting the other's right. So, in this case, the right to s…

You do not have a right to not inhale someone else's smoke. Let's be very clear about the language you're just throwing around like it doesn't mean anything, because the Rights recognized by the Constitution aren't just something that have no meaning.

That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke.

Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted"; they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind of thing (our fore-fathers did).