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

381–390 of 426 posts

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

#381

Post by FrozenSynapse »

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…

I cannot stand ecigarette smell, it makes me throw up, it's way worse than a normal cigarette.

Anyway, I don't smoke and I don't understand why should I endure cigarette smoke on the street.

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

#382

Post by FrozenSynapse »

013a wrote: post #380
ezoe wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.

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

#383

Post by TravHatesMe »

FrozenSynapse wrote: post #381
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…

I cannot stand ecigarette smell, it makes me throw up, it's way worse than a normal cigarette. Anyway, I don't smoke and I don't understand why should I endure cigarette smoke on the street.

Is second-hand smoke from ecigs equally harmful as real cigs? If that is not the case, then your comment sounds like you are entitled to fresh air everywhere you go -- which is not fair and seemingly self-centered.

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

#384

Post by 013a »

FrozenSynapse wrote: post #382
013a wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.

Unfortunately, you also don't have a recognized right to not be sick, nor one to guarantee comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. But the situation is a little more complex than the absolute of "ban everything that makes me feel funny."

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

#385

Post by ezoe »

013a wrote: post #384
FrozenSynapse wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.

Unfortunately, you also don't have a recognized right to not be sick, nor one to guarantee comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. But the situation is a little more complex than the absolute of "ban everything that makes me feel funny."

In my country(Japan), there are cases which ordered the neighbor/colleague to compensate the health damage he cause by passive smoking for his smoking inside his house or his desk.

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

#386

Post by benwad »

FrozenSynapse wrote: post #381
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…

I cannot stand ecigarette smell, it makes me throw up, it's way worse than a normal cigarette. Anyway, I don't smoke and I don't understand why should I endure cigarette smoke on the street.

If you live in SF (or any major city), your health problems from breathing someone else's smoke outside is negligible compared to the damage done by car emissions.

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

#387

Post by bdamm »

m0zg wrote: post #346
bdamm wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The list is definitely far from comprehensive. Thanks for adding. I think we could add many more especially if you include companies that boost their profits by taking advantage of people by presenting them with a dilemma of immediacy, such as Home Depot and their overpriced key rings, or movie theaters that disallow outside food and make all their money on popcorn and soda.

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

#388

Post by Tactic »

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…

If I don't like someone's speech that doesn't mean they are not allowed to say it. It means I can go elsewhere or ignore it. If you don't like someone's perfume your right isn't that they stop wearing it, it's that you go elsewhere and ignore it. If you don't like smoke... it's the same thing. You have every right to not want it. In which case it is incumbent on you to do something about it.

Unless you are making a health related argument. That is a different right other than you don't want it, that is a health concern, which is why smoking inside is predominately not allowed.

I'm all for personal rights... but they come with personal responsibilities that are upon you.

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

#389

Post by ionised »

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…

I don't want to breath smog or vehicle fumes either, because I have asthma and an asthma attack could kill me.

I doubt you'll stop driving tomorrow to spare my health though.

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

#390

Post by ionised »

FrozenSynapse wrote: post #381
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…

I cannot stand ecigarette smell, it makes me throw up, it's way worse than a normal cigarette. Anyway, I don't smoke and I don't understand why should I endure cigarette smoke on the street.

Same reason I as an asthmatic have to endure your vehicle smog causing me breathing difficulties.

Personal freedoms.

Post reply on HN