71–80 of 426 posts
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?
Let's work through the logic here: San Francisco assumes that the existing controls on the purchase of tobacco products by minors are a failure. They must act. San Francisco's reaction to this is to ban all tobacco products from the city, for the children. This is perfectly rational. But wait, no, their reaction is to ban the harm reduction option and keep the worst tobacco product known to be the most addictive and…
San Francisco is bending backward on a lot of issues. Homelessness, scooters, airbnb, housing, weed and now vaping.
I will never understand what the officials are smoking here.
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.
Whereas companies that harm the public often don't even care about the first order effects of their business.
All prohibition is asinine but this has to take the cake. Even if there is no way to prevent more kids from getting addicted to vaping (and that's a big if), having less kids and many less adults smoking cigarettes is such a huge win for public health. -- Anecdotally I went from 2 packs a day to chain vaping for a few years, health improved enough to start being much more active, finally weaned down nicotine, quittin…
Would you support methadone being freely available over the counter? After all, it is a valuable tool in helping get people off more dangerous opioids.
All prohibition is asinine but this has to take the cake. Even if there is no way to prevent more kids from getting addicted to vaping (and that's a big if), having less kids and many less adults smoking cigarettes is such a huge win for public health. -- Anecdotally I went from 2 packs a day to chain vaping for a few years, health improved enough to start being much more active, finally weaned down nicotine, quittin…
So regardless of anything else, it’s good that ecigs are banned as much as possible.
From the article: ``illegal . . . for online retailers to ship the goods to San Francisco addresses." Does anyone know how the government of SF would enforce that on an online retailer not based in SF? Tell them they've been fined, then sue them in state court if they don't pay?
Does anyone have a link to the text of the actual legislation? The article paints this as a general ban on sale/distribution/manufacture, but elsewhere narrows it to "on city property", so I'm curious about what the legislation actually says. Regardless, it's asinine that San Francisco would ban e-cigarettes and not actual cigarettes. It's also pointless; nothing stopping people from heading to Oakland or Daly City (…
Here is the link to the proposed ballot measure, which was somehow not linked to by ANY of the sources covering this story. https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/LI031919.pdf Looks to be two separate measures, one banning all nicotine products from being sold, manufactured, or distributed from City property, the 2nd banning all Non-FDA approved products (vapes) from the entire city: 190311 & 190312, respectively.
Thanks to that, I was able to find the "legislative background" for the restriction on non-FDA-approved tobacco products: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...
And for the prohibition of tobacco sale/manufacture/distribution from city property: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...
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?