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

281–290 of 426 posts

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

#281

Post by ceejayoz »

driverdan wrote: post #228
munk-a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is somewhat justified, smoking rates were decreasing nationally until e-cigs came into fashion, of course some conventional smokers switched which lowered the health detriments of smoking - but many more of the e-cig users are new smokers. I'd prefer a full ban but this is at least staunching what was a regression for public health. E-cigarettes, since their introduction, haven't improved public health -…

> E-cigarettes, since their introduction, haven't improved public health - they've worsened it. [citation needed]

https://www.voanews.com/science-health/us-youth-smoking-decl...

> For decades, the percentage of high school and middle school students who smoked cigarettes had been declining. For the past three years, it has flattened, according to new numbers released Monday. There may be several reasons, but a recent boom in vaping is the most likely explanation, said Brian King of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

#282

Post by tanseydavid »

joshanderson wrote: post #82
mattoxic wrote: post #34

I hate cigarettes, I hate the litter, the smell, and the smokers' belief that they have the divine right to pollute my airspace. I also hate the taxes I spend on keeping them in hospital - but. E cigarettes don't cause litter, the smoke is far less offensive. If people are going to smoke they will smoke. SF would be far better off banning actual cigarettes.

Ecigs cause tons of litter from the refill cartridges and from the batteries. Ecigs are much worse of a pollution problem than actual cigarettes.

How do you feel about Keurig K-Cups?

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

#283

Post by rbg246 »

stevenjohns wrote: post #254
quickthrower2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they sold? In Australia they have the gory death warnings, are sold in cabinets with no logos (just a plain font list of brand names) and are ridiculously expensive $40 for 20. Cigars might be an exception(?)

In Australia too - most people I know just buy undeclared cigarettes. Almost all international students that travel into the country bring a bunch of cartons with them and sell them at $10-$15/packet. It's a way for the international students to make a bit more money given how fucked over they are by the lack of working rights they have, coupled with the ridiculously high cost of living and expensive education costs.…

Increasing prices has (surprisingly, give it's price inelasticity) worked in decreasing smoking rates.

Here is the evidence of the public health meaures:

https://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.n...

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

#284

Post by refurb »

tdeck wrote: post #256
nilkn wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

It's also worth noting that the unpopularity of cigarettes preceded the rise of vaping by several years. So it felt like the problem was finally being solved for a while.

The biggest issue with cigarettes was the cancer risk. Vaping is much lower risk (if any) for cancer.

So even if people just swap smoking for vaping, a HUGE problem was solved.

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

#285

Post by dvtrn »

tastygreenapple wrote: post #245
WalterSear wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are vastly less harmful than cigarettes. Anyone who says different is misled, or misleading. They are, however, still extremely addictive. Arguably more so than cigarettes, since they enable the consumption of much higher doses of nicotine. A friend once told me, having quit nicotine and heroin, that while quitting heroin was 'like being the living dead', he could probably go through it again, but not nicot…

> They are, however, still extremely addictive. Isn't every stimulant? I'm reluctant to ban things on the basis of their addictive potential without considering the consequences of the addiction. I'm pretty sure at least half the people I know need coffee in the morning, but I don't think that means we should ban caffeine. I don't see nicotine as objectively better or worse than caffeine so it's unfortunate that one…

I've always kind of pondered why so many things get banned or receive strong, moralizing scrutiny under the auspices of "addiction" while coffee/caffeine remains the uncontested king of addicting commoditized chemical compounds.

Open mind here, but can someone elucidate this to me? It came up once in a rather intense discussion with my father in my teens once I discovered the devil's lettuce (cannabis) and my curiosity has yet to be abated by a convincing enough take on the matter.

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

#286

Post by refurb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #279
drawkbox wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't entirely understand the attacks on e-cigs and vaping. 1) e-cigs/vaping is safer with less carcinogens going into lungs. That will lead to less health issues down the line. Even if kids are getting them, which they shouldn't because it is sold in an age limited regulated market, it is still safer than cigarettes and a regulated market with good production is always safer than an unregulated black market. 2) va…

It's quite simple. Not smoking at all > vaping > cigarettes. Massive progress has been made in getting kids not to take up smoking. If you're a smoker, switching to vaping is a good thing. If you're not, it's a bad thing.

This reminds me of the right wing stance on sex education.

Abstinence > safe sex > unsafe sex

Yes, the first is desirable, but let’s be serious, it’s not a reasonable goal for most people.

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

#287

Post by iambateman »

delecti wrote: post #193
r00fus wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm an adult and I also really like candy. I have no interest in tobacco or nicotine, but I've considered getting tasty non-nicotine vape flavors because a zero-calorie alternative to actual candy might help in much the same way that non-tobacco vaping is a healthier alternative to smoking.

Forgive me for taking this rabbit trail to the limit...I also love candy...and a couple years ago I stop eating it entirely and switched to hot tea.

For $0.10 you can have endless flavors, real health benefits, and as much as you want.

Anyway...cheers. :)

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

#288

Post by dvtrn »

munk-a wrote: post #147
dvtrn wrote: post #56

Earlier 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…

I do have an example, the skytrain station I usually disembark on recently was plastered with vape ads[1][2]. I don't really see why e-cigarettes should need to advertise at all, they could simply be devices suggested to smokers by medical professionals as a cessation aid. I think we can also look to history when it comes to the flavouring of things, it used to be that medicines would be sweetened to override the nat…

I don't really see why e-cigarettes should need to advertise at all, they could simply be devices suggested to smokers by medical professionals as a cessation aid.

Had to let this post sit for a minute before responding, and on the grounds you're offering, to really think about it and look at other examples; ultimately I think I agree with you. Your point is well met.

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

#289

Post by refurb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #281
driverdan wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> E-cigarettes, since their introduction, haven't improved public health - they've worsened it. [citation needed]

https://www.voanews.com/science-health/us-youth-smoking-decl... > For decades, the percentage of high school and middle school students who smoked cigarettes had been declining. For the past three years, it has flattened, according to new numbers released Monday. There may be several reasons, but a recent boom in vaping is the most likely explanation, said Brian King of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That source says nothing about public health. Your assumption is vaping = worse public health.

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

#290

Post by freedomben »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #249
munk-a wrote: post #23

Earlier 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…

>but the adoption rate of smoking among younger folks has spiked since flavoured e-cigs were introduced. People cite this as if its the end of the justification for legislative action. No, it's merely the beginning of the argument. So the rate of e-cig usage is growing rapidly among teens. Why should I care?

Yes, thank you. Almost everyone seems to think that's it's self evident why vaping/smoking is immoral and must be stopped. I personally see nothing wrong with it. Having healthier options (vaping) seems like a huge win for everyone involved. Can we just stop meddling in eveyrbody elses business?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” -- CS Lewis

Post reply on HN