Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by tlarkworthy » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

scriptkiddy wrote: post #84

tlarkworthy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just switched to unflavoured base + nicotine shot. It's tastes fine and costs about 80% less. I can buy 1 litre(!) of base for $15, a premix of flavour 60ml costs the same!

Yep, I've made my own juice before as well. For me, I buy the pre-made juices most of the time because of the general convenience.

I find going down the store the inconvenience, hence the step up to 1 litre quantities. Lasts months.

Also since moving to Germany regulations force u to mix the flavour yourself, so the labour for flavour is greater.

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

#92

Post by ilikehurdles » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

cronix wrote: post #87

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…

> with candy flavors that appeal to younger consumers. Because no adults enjoy candy, or flavors? That's exclusive to "younger consumers" only? The vast majority of people who vape are adults. They also enjoy flavored e-juice. Maybe we should put stuff in alcohol that makes it so disgusting no one wants to drink it as well by that logic. Ban flavored alcohol and mixers... too many kids getting drunk off peach schnapp…

Just because some adults enjoy Sour Gummy Worms doesn't mean that the primary market isn't younger consumers. Don't be dense.

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

#93

Post by knightofmars » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #13

According to HL Mencken “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” It seems that Puritanism is still alive and well in America.

It's difficult to get rid of something when your country was partially founded by it.

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

#94

Post by partialrecall » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #83

partialrecall wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people, like myself, avoided a nicotine addiction in the first place because cigarettes are disgusting?

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?

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

#95

Post by crispyporkbites » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

magashna wrote: post #47

crispyporkbites wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not your decisions have an impact on other people’s lives and vice versa. Public health is important, we know the general public will not look out for their best interests on aggregate (see smoking or the opioid epidemic). As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives.

Let's see how well banning red meat and cars would go over. Vapes are an easy target right now. Heart disease and auto accidents are some of the greatest threats to the average American, but you'll never hear a politician going after those.

Cars and red meat aren’t really comparable as they have a long history in society. But Cars are probably the most regulated thing you interact with day to day. You need a license, insurance and have to follow precise rules to operate them safely. Red meat also has restrictions from government bodies.

In the free market those rules wouldn’t exist and people would be upset about taking their rights away when you regulate them.

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

#96

Post by atlasunshrugged » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

kaibee wrote: post #22

throw554 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who smoke cigarettes and otherwise have an unhealthy lifestyle overburden the health system and take away government spending that can be spent elsewhere. Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer?

> People who smoke cigarettes and otherwise have an unhealthy lifestyle overburden the health system and take away government spending that can be spent elsewhere. Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer? Do you have a source? I know it sounds intuitively correct, but I remember reading the opposite. Basically it goes like this: end of life/senior care is a very…

I don't have a good source for you on the counterargument you posited but I've been researching tobacco taxation for the last 3 months and I can tell you almost all literature I've read that's referenced that says that the burden of disease from smoking is more expensive.

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

#97

Post by atlasunshrugged » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #25

kaibee wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who smoke cigarettes and otherwise have an unhealthy lifestyle overburden the health system and take away government spending that can be spent elsewhere. Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer? Do you have a source? I know it sounds intuitively correct, but I remember reading the opposite. Basically it goes like this: end of life/senior care is a very…

Smokers pay a fair bit in tax as well.

Depends on what jurisdiction you're talking about and what you consider a fair bit. Many countries aren't in compliance with the FCTC rules on 70% specific tax for tobacco

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

#98

Post by crispyporkbites » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

mieseratte wrote: post #19

crispyporkbites wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not your decisions have an impact on other people’s lives and vice versa. Public health is important, we know the general public will not look out for their best interests on aggregate (see smoking or the opioid epidemic). As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives.

> As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives. Just say no?

You don’t have as much free will as you think you do on these matters.

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

#99

Post by siruncledrew » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

shpongled wrote: post #11

mpfundstein wrote: post #6

When can people finally stop to interfere in other peoples lives? If Bloomberg doesn’t want to vape flavors: fine, but give me the liberty to do so... Seriously, if I look back at my youth, I wonder how we all survived -.-

Bloomberg just loves to use his money to try to enforce his beliefs on other people.

"Let's Take Away Everything Fun!" - Michael Bloomberg 2020

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

#100

Post by 14 » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

I would like to see more laws making the use by kids illegal. Around here at least you don’t see kids walking around with bottles of alcohol because the police would stop and dump it out. Then question where they got it. I think the same should be done with vaping, aggressive targeting of kids caught vaping with punishments reaching to their parents possibly. If I let my kid go to school drunk repeatedly(or ever really) I would expect to have child services here. Why should we allow vaping any differently? Now I hear about 12 year olds vaping. That has to end.