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

391–400 of 426 posts

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

#391

Post by ivankirigin »

baby wrote: post #72
mullingitover wrote: post #26

Let's work through the logic here: San Francisco assumes that the existing controls on the purchase of tobacco products by minors are a failure. They must act. San Francisco's reaction to this is to ban all tobacco products from the city, for the children. This is perfectly rational. But wait, no, their reaction is to ban the harm reduction option and keep the worst tobacco product known to be the most addictive and…

Also. There are almost no kids in SF. There are more dogs than children. True fact. San Francisco is bending backward on a lot of issues. Homelessness, scooters, airbnb, housing, weed and now vaping. I will never understand what the officials are smoking here.

Under 18 population:

  Chicago - 23%
  New York - 21%
  San Francisco - 13%
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children...

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

#393

Post by eqdw »

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…

Your right to breathe clean air in your house is violated by somebody using a juul in a different house five miles away?

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

#394

Post by bliblah »

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.

Because the companies themselves have admitted to marketing towards this demographic. [1]

The market was wildly unregulated and it was printing free money for these companies to target kids and sell these pods in retail stores. Heck I even remember going to a gamestop and seeing video game style vape pods.

I'm not going to comment on the ban itself, but I think it is reasonable to assume that these companies have very big incentives to target minors and create brand loyalty early on since regulations can be quite murky regarding e-cigarettes.

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2018/11/16/t...

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

#395

Post by Balgair »

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…

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/fda-vaping-liquids-juice-boxes-ca...

https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/ctp-newsroom/e-liquids-...

Just look at that packaging! It's aimed directly at kids. JFC, it's even got the leprechaun and rainbow on it, same font, same little marshmallow shapes, just like the cereal.

'Oh, but adults like colors too!'

Give me a break.

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

#396

Post by samcday »

Tactic wrote: post #388
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…

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 h…

I don't think this is at all analogous to speech. For example, you might be entitled to say whatever you want under free speech protections in the US, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to walk up to random people and shout in their face. If you do that long enough you'll definitely earn yourself some misdemeanors. If you consistently did it to a particular person against their wishes, you'd eventually get some kind of harassment felony charge.

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

#397

Post by joenot443 »

samcday wrote: post #396
Tactic wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I don't think this is at all analogous to speech. For example, you might be entitled to say whatever you want under free speech protections in the US, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to walk up to random people and shout in their face. If you do that long enough you'll definitely earn yourself some misdemeanors. If you consistently did it to a particular person against their wishes, you'd eventually get some kin…

At the risk of being pedantic, I think the free speech analogue is still valid. You would likely receive the same harassment charge if you were purposely walking up to strangers and blowing smoke in their face. Here in Canada, there are no laws which prevent you from standing on the street corner preaching whatever you like, just like you're allowed to smoke tobacco on the street corner.

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

#398

Post by tracker1 »

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…

    > 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.
No. One's personal liberty should extend so far as to where it doesn't impose on someone else's rights. People are and should be allowed to be offensive, annoying our outright distasteful. YOU can go elsewhere. If the owner of a business wants to allow smokers/vapers, that should be their decision.

I'm not blind to the pragmatism of public spaces and near outside entrances, etc. That said, your premise is wrong and too narrow. Which is probably a reflection on the greater issues becoming ever more relevant to shutting down conversations, ideas and election meddling that is coming to light. It's probably time for people to start actually listening to ideas they don't agree with, empathize with those positions and rationally come to reasonable compromise. Right now there's only escalation and it will likely lead to a very real, very violent and very different civil war.

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

#399

Post by almost_usual »

dannykwells wrote: post #379
almost_usual wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 terr…

>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.

Where do you think most of these homeless people from? SF originally? It's a national issue, they migrate to the West Coast from all over the country because of weather and better programs. The West Coast is pretty much the social safety net of the United States for people with mental illness and other issues.

>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.

I don't hit traffic in the city before 11am on the weekends. People sleep in and get started later, if you beat the rush you beat traffic.

Yeah the traffic is definitely going to be where all the people live because that's where all the people live. You said SF specifically in your comment not the "Bay Area" or East Bay / Peninsula.

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

#400

Post by almost_usual »

tanseydavid wrote: post #301
almost_usual wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

"I can usually leave on a Saturday at 8am, get to upper North Bay (Novato, etc), crank out a 5+ mile hike, grab lunch, and be back at home by 11:30am without hitting any traffic." Surely you must be exaggerating? How quickly do you cover 5 miles hiking? How quickly do you eat lunch for that matter?

Did it last weekend, 1200ft increase in elevation. Pack a sandwich to eat or grab one on the go. I hike often and hit the gym 4+ days a week so I might be moving faster than average. My lunch stop is usually 10-15 min.

Either way, if you start the hike before 9am in the North Bay you'll beat the traffic rush out of the city. You could spend an extra couple hours if you wanted. As long as you head back before 2pm you'll beat the re-entry rush into the city.

Post reply on HN