San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by tastygreenapple » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #19

pigscantfly wrote: post #7

This 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.

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 -…

I thought the health effects of e-cigs were relatively benign? I know it's common to consider the health profile of a substance with 'no substance' as the basis of comparison, but people seem to like stimulation and get it however they can. I don't like e-cigs, but I imagine they have to be one of the least harmful ways of getting stimulated.

Is there a safer stimulant and do you think this ban will encourage people to use that?

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

#32

Post by meowface » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

I could understand a "secondhand smoke"-like law being applied to them, but a ban? When cigarettes are legal?

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

#33

Post by QuickToBan » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:40 PM UTC

The homeless in SF use cigs, not e-cigs. It would've therefore been productive to actually ban the sale of cigs instead so as to drive out the homeless, but why would one expect an ounce of unbiased logic from politicians?

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

#34

Post by mattoxic » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:40 PM UTC

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.

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

#35

Post by munk-a » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:40 PM UTC

tjr225 wrote: post #21

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 -…

Heh. Well, I realize this is anecdotal, but I'd probably still be smoking a pack a day if I hadn't tried out e-cigs as a cessation tool. It really makes it easy. Smoke and Vape free for around 4 years now.

I know a bunch of people with you and e-cigs have real benefits for allowing people to ween off the addiction that patches never offered... it's just that the marketing actions of these companies have been incredibly irresponsible and the inaction from the US Surgeon General has been embarrassing.

I really don't want anyone to feel shamed over their smoking habit but it's an unhealthy thing and if you get into as an adult you should do so only when you're fully aware of the consequences - the way they've been advertised has hooked a lot of minors.

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

#36

Post by kaycebasques » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

The HN response seems strongly negative so far. Can someone educated in the space play devil’s advocate and share ideas on why it might be a good move?

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

#37

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by fady » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

Crazy. Good for them. It's like we forget about big tobacco. From a health/social point of view I'm glad they coming out ahead of everyone else. Curious how it will play out in the end, and if the Mayor intends on signing it.

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

#39

Post by baggy_trough » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

Really, really awful legislation. Just shows you what a terrible job the SF supervisors are doing.

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

#40

Post by QuickToBan » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

bcp2384 wrote: post #18

Convinced 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.

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.