I've been shadow banned!
YAY!
I hope you HN mods get cancer of the dick.
San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
181–190 of 426 posts
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#182I'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. Do you have kids? They love what their friends have, and really really like candy flavors.
Yes, but adults also really like candy flavors. Should we no longer be permitted by the state to drink mojitos or Moscow mules because they also happen to be delicious?
You also did not provide a response to the text you quoted. Why does having kids, or knowing that they like candy flavors, mean that all flavored things are aimed at children?
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#183This is perverse given that tobacco cigarettes are still widely available. I can't remember the last time I was actually satisfied with a decision from the Board of Supervisors.
While I don't live in SF or even CA, I'll try to offer an explanation of why this might make sense based on what I've observed.
I'm 29, which puts me sort of at the intersection of two age groups right now. I'm starting to be able to connect with older folks, and I can still connect with younger 20somethings.
Nobody I know under 25 smokes cigarettes. Anecdotally, cigarettes in that age group are nearly universally abhorred. Vaping, however, is seen as counter-cultural and cool. Moreover, and perhaps worse, it's seen as nonaddictive and harmless. Yet severe, almost crippling nicotine addiction is celebrated in popular culture (e.g., https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-turner-d...).
In fact, I've seen a depth of addiction to Juul that exceeds what I've seen from older pack-a-day cigarette smokers. I know folks who have to take a hit off their Juul every 3-5 minutes all day long except when sleeping. When sleeping, they won't sleep through the night continuously, and if they do they won't sleep more than six hours because they'll need to wake up and take several hits.
Kids do not want to smoke cigarettes. Young people generally do not want to smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes are mostly a risk to the older generation. Juul and other brands have caused a new generation to become shockingly addicted to nicotine all over again from scratch.
Of course, with all that said, one must wonder which group of people should be prioritized: kids or the older folks? This legislation is trying to protect the former at the expense of the latter (by taking away an effective smoking cessation tool). Clearly, this does not make sense in San Francisco -- a city that more or less does not have kids at all.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am happy that's worked out for you - and e-cigs are definitely less dangerous than conventional cigarettes, but the adoption rate of smoking among younger folks has spiked since flavoured e-cigs were introduced. I really want vapes to be available as an alternative to conventional smoking but the companies pushing them now are addicting a lot of new users, if the market participants were more responsible these devi…
I work with someone who's crusaded against e-cigs and part of the reason the ban was put in place was that JUUL was making kid-desired flavors like "candy corn" and "unicorn milk". E-cigs are essentially a very addictive substance (Nicotine) and a bunch of unregulated (and unreported) substances + flavor. They're also disguised as usb-keys and hard to detect (not like a cigarette). I'm sure SF lobbied with JUUL befor…
>JUUL was making kid-desired flavors like "candy corn" and "unicorn milk".
No, that's incorrect. Juul manufactured "Fruit Medley" and "Mango," both of which are now restricted to online-only sales through their age-verification platform. There are thousands of other vendors who sell sweet-flavored nicotine solutions, though.
I also fundamentally disagree that only children like sweet flavors, and I wonder why fruit-flavored ciders and liqueurs are still legal.
>E-cigs are essentially a very addictive substance (Nicotine) and a bunch of unregulated (and unreported) substances + flavor.
So are regular cigarettes. But regular cigarettes also include the inhalation of a significant amount of tar.
>They're also disguised as usb-keys and hard to detect (not like a cigarette).
It's not a disguise. When first released, Juul's form factor was fairly distinctive but there are a wide variety of commercial e-cigarette form factors now. I'm also not sure what "hard to detect" has to do with anything -- by who, when, in what context?
>I'm sure SF lobbied with JUUL before laying down the ban-hammer.
What does this mean? The phrasing is usually "Company X lobbied Politician Y" or "Company X hired a lobbyist to lobby members of Legislature Z."
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a result the entire planet is in grave danger due to climate change. How do we fix this? To borrow a little from Switzerland, I think a direct democracy at every level of government is needed. But first we must have many more remote jobs so people don't feel pressured to live in cities. They can then result in the creation of new cities elsewhere with a direct democracy via cryptographically secure apps.
This very much HN bubble thinking. In the grand scheme of things, a very small percentage of jobs are conducive for remote work.
Almost all office jobs could be remote only.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#186I'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…
Because kids love candy. Adults do too, but kids much more.
That's strange, I haven't seen any calls for bans for wine, wine coolers, candy flavored liquors, beers made with fruit such as lambics, etc.
Kids under 16 aren't old enough to drive, and yet there are plenty of toys shaped like cars and trucks.
Toy guns, movies involving gun violence without R ratings, saturday morning cartoons, television featuring people consuming alcohol, etc.
All of the above can have just as bad as, if not worse, consequences for children should the gateway argument be applied.
This is not to downplay the consequences of minors using tobacco products. It's to demonstrate that just because something appeals to a child does not mean that it should be prohibited for adults to consume / participate in situations that only adults should be allowed to consume it.
Campfires are plenty enthralling - sing along songs, s'mores, hot dogs, etc. There's no calculating the devastation caused by out of control fires, and children definitely should not be playing with it, and yet there's no call to ban adults from enjoying them either.
The whole argument is an ad absurdum, from campfires all the way back to banning pleasant tasting tobacco.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#187Instead of writing short rages or immediately drawing party lines, those who enjoy consuming nicotine might benefit from writing openly and honestly about the fact that they enjoy these products. Perhaps mention the fact that current research leans in the direction that secondhand vapor is less harmful than secondhand smoke [1] and so vaping could be treated as more of an individual freedom. Personally, I think socie…
"Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape..."
Not to nit pick, but that sentiment may be backwards. Society should not disallow vaping. By default, we are free beings and we are allowed to vape. Until someone stops us by threat or force.
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
And needles for heroin distributed for free
Do you want needles for heroin distributed for free or do you want your tax dollars to be spent on treating easily preventable diseases because it's hard to obtain needles? Making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.
There are some very happy drug dealers that get government subsidies out there in the city
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you talk about irresponsible marketing, do you mean from the e-cig companies specifically and do you have examples? My only experience with the e-cigarette marketing have been commercials where some guy is standing there telling you the same type of stories being shared here “I used to smoke x amount of cigarettes a day, now I use this”, followed by the usual boilerplate “nicotine is an addictive substance” disc…
https://www.google.com/search?q=juul+ads&safe=off&hl=de&tbm=... as a starting point for ads very much on the "attract young people", not the "medically helpful device" end of the spectrum.
Up here in Canada I've seen more Vype ads[1] which aren't quite as bad... those are hilarious - I really don't understand how people can say they're not targeting young people with a straight face.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=vype+ads&oq=vype+ad...
Re: San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban
#190Convinced part of the problem with political offices is that elected politicians have no incentive to actually consider second order or third order effects of any piece of legislation they pass. Everything is optimized for first order effects only e.g. optics because that is what they think "shows" they did something.
> elected politicians have no incentive to actually consider second order or third order effects of any piece of legislation they pass.
You're absolutely right. And why should they care? They don't own the power they wield, they're merely renting it for some period of time. After their time is up, and they're done throwing their weight around, they can wash their hands of all repercussions.