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

111–120 of 164 posts

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

#111

Post by atlasunshrugged »

tempsy wrote: post #18

Has anyone proposed making e-cigarette devices prescription only? Seems like if the manufacturers are really saying "we only want addicted smokers to use our device" that requiring a prescription from a doctor to oversee you through some addiction recovery program would make sense as far as regulating its use goes.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, if as many vape co's say that they're tools for cessation then they should be okay with this too, but of course it's a much bigger market if it's available to everyone

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

#112

Post by leetcrew »

partialrecall wrote: post #94
leetcrew wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not arguing with your main point. at the end of the day, people are certainly not addicted to cotton candy vape flavor. as you say, they are addicted to the nicotine. it would be great if everyone could just quit nicotine all at the same time, but that's not a realistic solution. so for the people who can't quit, what is the best harm reduction strategy that they will actually tolerate? it's certainly not patches, an…

But you said you hate the flavor of cigarettes now, which is not the same as hating flavorless vapes. I would expect you and most others to prefer flavorless vapes to cigarettes, and therefore, to continue vaping after a flavor ban, instead of switching to cigarettes. Am I off the mark there?

this is the kind of thing that's hard to understand if you haven't experienced it yourself.

vaping delivers nicotine differently than smoking. iirc, the acidity of tobacco smoke allows the nicotine to be absorbed much more quickly. cigarettes also contain other (more dangerous) psychoactive compounds not found in vape liquid. from the chemical delivery perspective, the cigarette is preferable to the vape. the vape is fighting an uphill battle against the cigarette; it's winning now because it has fewer (noticeable/known) health effects and tastes better. if you start removing the flavor advantage, people switch back to cigarettes on the margin.

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

#113

Post by scriptkiddy »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #104
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…

I'm not sure I agree that advertising is the most sane course of action here - if you take tobacco as a reference then the intervention that causes the highest decrease in usage is tax (and higher price coincidentally usually leads to lower usage rates especially in younger people because they're more price sensitive). So if banning is too far to go, then a middle ground might be to have a very high tax on the produc…

From one perspective I would be in favor of this as long the tax on cigarettes is higher than the tax on vaping products. That way both appear unattractive, but cigarettes more so.

From another perspective I wouldn't be in favor of higher taxes on vaping products because it would be yet another tax affecting primarily lower income people.

So, while I don't think it's a bad idea, I think I would need to do some more research on the ramifications before supporting it.

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

#114

Post by atlasunshrugged »

simplecomplex wrote: post #67

Bloomberg can ban ecig juice if we can ban him from eating fried chicken and Cheez—its: “The New York Times reports that even as the mayor implements one city-wide dietary restriction after another, he continues to indulge. He loves burnt bacon and peanut butter sandwiches, hot dogs, fried chicken, and Cheez-its. He puts so much salt on his bagels “that it’s like a pretzel,” and so much salt on popcorn “that it burns…

I'm pretty sure Bloomberg won't end up in the hospital unable to pay for his own heart surgery that the taxpayers will then have to cover. The average smoker who gets cancer? Not so sure, and I don't really want to pay for them

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

#115

Post by scriptkiddy »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #108
alistairSH wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible Not true. Big Tobacco owns (partially or outright) most of the big players in the vaping industry. Vuse is owned by Reynolds, Vype is owned by BAT, and Altria has a massive stake in Juul. It's in Big Tobacco's interest to ensure vaping is easy and viewed as an alternative to cigarettes. It's also in their interest to keep the product i…

Maybe the US market turned out very different, but the UK market has be pushing 90%+ coming from independent vape shops, stalls and some discount chains selling e-liquids from non-tobacco connected vape specialists. It's where just about everyone seems to get their switch to vaping when they decide to give up smoking. The big tobacco owned products like Vype are almost always seen in petrol stations, off-licences and…

I've had the same experience here in Southern California.

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

#117

Post by CobrastanJorji »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #85
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... I think regulating the advertisement of these products is probably the most sane course of action here. The moment when people view themselves as having the most reasonable point of view and they’re trying to defend tobacco companies is how you know we’ve reached Peak Reasonable. Do software engineers really want to die on the hill of, “The kinds of reasonable I practice at work auth…

All people are the people who view themselves as having the most reasonable point of view.

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

#118

Post by siruncledrew »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #38
EpicEng wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, kids seem to like alcoholic drinks with sweet flavors as well. Should we get rid of those? How about food that tastes great but is bad for you? Obesity is a massive problem in this country.

RIP Four Loko

Oh, Four Loko... Honestly, a similar-tasting drink could probably be made by mixing Arizona, Red Bull, and Vodka/Gin together.

The ban still seems silly and reactionary. I think part of the reason various states' AGs got up in arms about Four Loko was the brand image of it being a "low-class, college drink". If there was an upscale-looking Irish Coffee alcoholic drink in a glass bottle like a Starbucks coffee hit the shelves in stores, would that also get banned if college students happen to like coffee and alcohol?

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

#119

Post by atlasunshrugged »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #113
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree that advertising is the most sane course of action here - if you take tobacco as a reference then the intervention that causes the highest decrease in usage is tax (and higher price coincidentally usually leads to lower usage rates especially in younger people because they're more price sensitive). So if banning is too far to go, then a middle ground might be to have a very high tax on the produc…

From one perspective I would be in favor of this as long the tax on cigarettes is higher than the tax on vaping products. That way both appear unattractive, but cigarettes more so. From another perspective I wouldn't be in favor of higher taxes on vaping products because it would be yet another tax affecting primarily lower income people. So, while I don't think it's a bad idea, I think I would need to do some more r…

Why do you say it would primarily affect lower income people? You mean because the cigarette smoker user base skews low income? I guess it affects them in the sense that some pay more, but many others quit something that is harmful which "helps" them (but of course net negative if you value personal will higher than the health cost and believe that people who smoke are entirely rational)

But agreed, in light of the current evidence that vaping seems to be better than cigarettes the tax should be lower, ideally pushing people who smoke to switch to vapes as an alternative

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

#120

Post by ilikehurdles »

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.

The other, much bigger part, is addiction. Otherwise, why aren't nicotine-free vape mixes front and center? Manufacturers are pushing higher and higher amounts of nicotine to keep people hooked after the fonzie factor wears off.
Post reply on HN