Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 164 posts

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#71

Post by leetcrew »

partialrecall wrote: post #35
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #3

There was a really solid thread on Vaping generally that also had some relevant insights the other day here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20915520 There is a strong argument for vaping as a harm reduction tool, I wonder if that holds up (or is made stronger) if there are no flavors

Surely it's the nicotine that people are addicted to, not the flavor. That's just my assumption though, I've never gotten myself addicted to any of that shit; one taste of a cigarette was all I needed to know.

part of why people have such success switching to vapes is that most people actually find vaping to be a more enjoyable experience than smoking (after a transition period). your clothes don't stink, you can breathe noticeably better, etc. imo, the pleasant flavors are a major part of this. I've bummed a couple cigarettes since I switched to vaping and I can't even finish one anymore; they taste gross now.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#72

Post by DanBC »

mfoy_ wrote: post #31
landcoctos wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape bans haven't banned cigarettes yet, right? Make it extremely difficult to vape and people will resort to smoking. Maybe, but vaping has (had?) the reputation of being "safer" than cigarettes. I doubt there would be a 1:1 of potential vappers to smokers.

Anecdotally, I know people who started vaping without ever having touched cigarettes before.

The English (maybe rest of UK too I dunno) approach is a voluntary code of practice for shops that sell vapes and juices to check that people have been smokers before selling to them.

I think this is the right approach for the UK. I'm not sure it'll work in the US.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#73

Post by partialrecall »

leetcrew wrote: post #71
partialrecall wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it's the nicotine that people are addicted to, not the flavor. That's just my assumption though, I've never gotten myself addicted to any of that shit; one taste of a cigarette was all I needed to know.

part of why people have such success switching to vapes is that most people actually find vaping to be a more enjoyable experience than smoking (after a transition period). your clothes don't stink, you can breathe noticeably better, etc. imo, the pleasant flavors are a major part of this. I've bummed a couple cigarettes since I switched to vaping and I can't even finish one anymore; they taste gross now.

How many people, like myself, avoided a nicotine addiction in the first place because cigarettes are disgusting?

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#75

Post by dsfyu404ed »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #10

I understand that we don't want our kids vaping or smoking, but banning flavored juices is the wrong way to go about it. All it's going to accomplish is deregulation of the flavored juice market. People will buy unflavored juices and add their own (possibly dangerous)flavoring agents at home. Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape…

>On a more philosophical note, are we really OK with the government reaching this far into our personal lives?

If I had a nickle for every time someone with high income said "there ought to be a law" I'd have a very high income.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#76

Post by fnord123 »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #10

I understand that we don't want our kids vaping or smoking, but banning flavored juices is the wrong way to go about it. All it's going to accomplish is deregulation of the flavored juice market. People will buy unflavored juices and add their own (possibly dangerous)flavoring agents at home. Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape…

>On a more philosophical note, are we really OK with the government reaching this far into our personal lives?

It's not reaching into your personal life. It's reaching into businesses to stop them from selling damaging and highly addictive products. Banning tobacco would be optimal but not feasible since too many people are already addicted.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#77

Post by DanBC »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #68
kortilla wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it will lead to more using cigarettes. If it’s any more than the 20:1 safety difference then it’s still a net loss.

I'm confident there are significant numbers of people (read: kids) who would have never taken up cigarettes but took up vaping as the cool new way to get cancer.

What cancer causing ingredients are there in vape liquids?

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#78

Post by ilikehurdles »

mieseratte wrote: post #19
crispyporkbites wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not your decisions have an impact on other people’s lives and vice versa. Public health is important, we know the general public will not look out for their best interests on aggregate (see smoking or the opioid epidemic). As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives.

> As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives. Just say no?

Man, where is this attitude when opiates are in the news!

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#79

Post by robdachshund »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #68
kortilla wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it will lead to more using cigarettes. If it’s any more than the 20:1 safety difference then it’s still a net loss.

I'm confident there are significant numbers of people (read: kids) who would have never taken up cigarettes but took up vaping as the cool new way to get cancer.

The whole point of vaping is that it does not cause cancer
Post reply on HN