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

401–410 of 426 posts

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

#401

Post by mullingitover »

eweise wrote: post #334
mullingitover wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point still stands. It's like if you knew liquor stores would just break the law and sell alcohol to anyone who could see over the counter, and you won't do anything to stop them...instead your response is to ban only beer. The (wholly unfounded by extant evidence)theory is that substantial numbers of teens who vape are going to move on to the more harmful cigarettes, and so e-cigarettes should be discouraged. Gr…

You don't get it maybe because you don't have kids. e-cigarettes have a different appeal than smoking. Cigarettes are what your parents did and its not cool at all. Vaping with all the different flavors and drugs you can inhale, is all the rage. Its very hard to for schools to control because there is no real smoke and can be hidden easily. I have kids in high school and middle school and they both report lots of vap…

We need to ban all steaks!

Why?

Because my baby keeps finding steaks and choking on them!

Shouldn't you just...take responsibility for your baby and keep it away from steak? Plenty of people eat steaks and they're fine.

No! You don't get it because you don't have kids.

Edit: Seriously though, I do understand, and if I were a parent I too would probably try to deflect my responsibilities onto the rest of society. Parenting is hard, and it's much easier to try to control the whole world than to control the little people you're personally responsible for. It's an easy impulse to indulge, and history is full of examples of this. I don't blame you.

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

#402

Post by eridius »

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'm glad to hear e-cigarettes helped your friend's grandmother!

Unfortunately there's not very much actual evidence yet that e-cigarettes help people quit smoking, and according to the actual ordinance under discussion, there's some evidence that it can actually increase smoking.

> And while there is some evidence that the use of e-cigarettes by adults may support smoking cessation under certain circumstances, a 2018 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report concluded that there was moderate evidence that e-cigarette use in fact increases the frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking in the future.

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

#403

Post by rsj_hn »

ryanmercer wrote: post #369
rsj_hn wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. What is the difference between banning and criminalizing? You are going to use the power of the state to punish someone that does not obey your ban, right? Is it about fines versus jail time? 2. Do you support SF treating weed the same as e-cigs?

>What is the difference between banning and criminalizing? I would assume banning the sale of via business located inside San Francisco vs police throwing you against a wall and patting you down when they see you vaping something.

So your problem is the level of intensity? E.g. it's OK if a business is given a huge fine and maybe has to close as long as the owner of the business is not "thrown up against the wall"?

It seems to me that whether someone is thrown against a wall is not nearly as important as whether something is legal or illegal, in terms of infringing on liberties.

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

#404

Post by lordfrikk »

tanakachen wrote: post #208
jasonhansel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, the fact that they are so addictive is (in itself) a reason to tightly regulate them.

Not really. If you decide to smoke then that’s a personal decision. The bigger problem is littering from spent e-cigarette cartridges and batteries. That is a problem that affects smokers and non smokers alike. So the ban is a good idea, but unrelated to any health issues.

It's a personal decision with far-reaching societal impact [0]. Even types of addiction that are not obviously health-destroying can, in fact, be killing you and thus imposing indirect burden on society [1].

[0]: https://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/tobacco-smoking/ [1]: https://www.alternet.org/2012/09/how-gambling-can-kill-you-f...

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

#405

Post by seandougall »

hnzix wrote: post #349
seandougall wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You can literally buy little plastic condoms for your e-cigs.

That's both an amusing mental image and a pretty great idea. One that has no analog with hypodermic needles, so it's still a false comparison.

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

#406

Post by ladberg »

JamesBarney wrote: post #305
ladberg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get zero nicotine, but not everyone does. I know a few people who accidentally got themselves addicted to nicotine by vaping too much without really thinking of the consequences.

Your friend didn't know nicotine was addictive?

Everyone knows nicotine is addictive, not everyone knows how much nicotine they are ingesting when they vape as you can take in much more way faster than you can by smoking.

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

#407

Post by LocalH »

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.

Nobody ever considers the downside to all this heavy-handed governance. When you give the government the power to regulate lives at such a level, what do you do if social mores change, and what you support is suddenly the contrary view? Do you capitulate, or do you stand firm?

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

#408

Post by decebalus1 »

eridius wrote: post #402
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'm glad to hear e-cigarettes helped your friend's grandmother! Unfortunately there's not very much actual evidence yet that e-cigarettes help people quit smoking, and according to the actual ordinance under discussion, there's some evidence that it can actually increase smoking. > And while there is some evidence that the use of e-cigarettes by adults may support smoking cessation under certain circumstances, a 2018…

It's interesting that studies from across the pond show otherwise, with the NHS endorsing e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation device.

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

#409

Post by decebalus1 »

kappi wrote: post #96

Vaping is epidemic in US middle schools and high schools. Restrooms are filled with vaping smoke and causing lot of problems for others. Schools are not doing anything about it.

So.. should we ban everything which teens find trendy for everyone? E-cigs are already age-restricted, same as alcohol and weed (which kids are also consuming). Why is vaping specifically targeted? Perhaps we should go after the schools which are not doing anything about it or after the parents who aren't paying attention to their kid's finances?

This is just another moral panic.

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

#410

Post by lm28469 »

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…

> They are God-Given

Honest question, what do you mean by that?

Post reply on HN