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, quitting vaping was hard but not near as yard as other cigarette quits, have been nicotine free for almost a year (not even a puff) and now I avg about 10+ miles a week running and 50+ miles a week biking and am in the best shape of my life at almost-40.
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 devices could have been all positive.
In this debate people really underestimate how bad smoking is for you.
UK NHS estimates e-cigarettes about 95% less damaging than smoking. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/vaping-quit-smokin...
Are you calling vaping "smoking"? Because that would be disingenuous.
Also you may as well just say "since e-cigs were introduced" since there was never a time that they weren't flavored.
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 before laying down the ban-hammer.
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?
But yeah, banning all of it (with priority on getting rid of the real cigarettes that cause others' harm) in public spaces would be my preference.
Where's the proof that e-cigarettes are harmful?
We have mountains of evidence that cigarettes are one of the most harmful habits one can do.
Do we have proof e-cigs cause lung cancer, or other types of cancer? COPD? asthma? no, we do not.
edit: people seem to be very downvote-happy on this site when they disagree with something.
Combustion of tobacco produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) which are heavily carcinogenic. Vaporization of nicotine does NOT produce these compounds.
Additionally the UK Government claims that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, suggesting they are less damaging than junk food, soda, or car exhaust. Why not ban coca-cola and real cigarettes besides ecig?
Family member finally quit smoking to ride more, went a little too gung-ho on endurance and developed an afib. He couldn't take blood thinners due to arthritis meds. Mixing those is apparently worse than your stroke risk. But he lost that lottery and threw a clot a few years ago and things were pretty bad.
It's not about quitting anymore though. It's way beyond that.
Vaping is incredibly addictive, and because it's 'not smoking' and Juul is marketing it as 'cool' - it's massively taking over.
While vaping is obviously better than smoking, it has odd side effects due to the fact it's not, for example, I found myself vaping all the time, as opposed to just 'smoke breaks'.
Understand a few things:
1) Marketing works 2) Trends are real 3) Young people are very impressionable 4) The earlier addiction happens, the more life-long issues it causes 5) Critical masses are real: 5 kids in a high school doing it may not flip the school, but 25 might be enough and flip it into 1/2 the school 6) Supply and Demand is real. Make things harder to get, more expensive, higher barriers, the less people do it, the less likely there is to be a 'tipping point' collective behaviour.
I don't think they should have banned it, but they should totally ban all forms of advertising and promotion, there should be relatively high taxes on it, health warnings, and they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a school. At least if the kids can go all day without vaping, they might not fall into a hole.
In Canada, vaping among teenagers has increased 75% in one year this is quite a substantial thing to worry about. [1]
[1] http://www.cancer.ca/en/about-us/for-media/media-releases/na...
Info for those interested here: https://harmreduction.org/issues/overdose-prevention/dope-sf...
So regardless of anything else, it’s good that ecigs are banned as much as possible.
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.
This is just truly absurd. For some reason I thought maybe it meant the use of vapes indoors or something similar, but the entire sale? Fucking overbearing politicians. This kind of hypocritical action makes progressives look bad.
It’s entirely reasonable to take regulatory steps to protect younger persons. Habits ingrained now last a lifetime - that’s why Juul is fighting this - a new generation of consumers is at risk of not having access to their product. Other cities and states are watching this play out.
By the way, just because you don’t see a lot of kids where you hang out, believe me there are tons of kids here. I have one. We live in San Francisco. There is a robust parent community here. You may not see it if you aren’t looking for it. For example, did you know there’s a large playground at ... mission Dolores park? And if you and your childless friends decided it was a fun place to play, you will get asked to leave. Possibly by the police.
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) vaping/e-cigs don't combust, so there is no fire, which almost cuts out the threat of a fire starting completely unless a battery explodes which is very rare. A burning cigarette falling will continue to burn by design every single time.
3) e-cigs/vaping leave no butts, no trash and are mostly devices people want to keep and reuse. Reusability and no pollution are what e-cigs/vaping bring. Cigarette butts are the single greatest source of ocean pollution [1], and next to gum, all over all the time.
Prohibitions and illegality of substances a certain percentage of people will always use, make these areas more dangerous in use/production and make harm reduction much more difficult.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigar...
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.
Most commercial e-cigs have some form of disposable component, ranging from the plastic pods used by Juul to some Blu-branded devices which are entirely one-time-use.
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 - they've worsened it.
[citation needed]
Is there a safer stimulant and do you think this ban will encourage people to use that?
I was just in a vape shop in the American south for the first time a few days ago.
They are presented as technological marvels. No noticable gory death warnings.
There are several different vape models out in the store center plugged in for you to try out. Everything is extremely clean and shiny, it basically looks like an Apple store. The juice is kept behind the counter in bottles that are backlit with a pleasant blue light [1]. The store is also lit from above by those lightbulbs that have the vintage looking exposed thick filaments [2].
Everything about the store screams, "This is healthy, this is the future, this is cool"
The actual vapes available for sale are locked in a display cabinet, making it feel as if they are as valuable and desirable as jewelery. Behind the counter is a counterculture looking person with guages and tattoos and a laid-back but professional attitude.
Completely different from a typical tobacco store.
There are also ads out on the counter about CBD oil and how it's totally not illegal, so you should definitely give it a try.
I'd imagine the presentation is much the same in California.
[1]: https://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/YNiG2iB_3prcuo0araZY...
[2]: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0903/0788/products/Thomas_...
All the price raising on tobacco has done is push revenue into the black market, invent crimes from nothing and turn otherwise honest people into criminals.
I have a friend who's 80 year old grandmother was addicted to cigarettes. He wanted to buy her an ecigarette for christmas to help her quit, even though he subtly felt like it may be for naught given her age and how long she had been addicted. I suggested a Juul just because of how easy it is to operate and the high nicotine content, given its targeted toward people trying to quit.
A few months ago he showed me a picture of her "empty pod drawer". She didn't want to throw out the pods because she was hoping there was a way to recycle them. There were probably a hundred. She doesn't smoke anymore.
Maybe, in the worldview of the officials, no one would consume nicotine. That isn't the world we live in; in the world we live in, these city officials are simply indirectly responsible for the premature deaths of thousands of people. Moreover, I don't even know if that's a world we should be idealizing, in the same way I don't know if a world without alcohol or caffeine or tylenol would be more ideal than the one we have. Just to start thinking about it: nicotine is a nootropic, and recreation is definitely great for your productivity and wellbeing. There aren't zero positives to the chemical.
Its mostly just sad to see addiction so continually demonized in our society. We want to point blame, and then push it out of our minds like it doesn't exist. And in the case of these city officials; literally push it out of their city. I can only hope that, one day, the people who run that very strange city start the process of learning to treat other people with the love and care we all deserve.
I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my right.
If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action must be forbidden for protecting the other's right.
So, in this case, the right to smoke shall be allowed in the condition in which my right of no inhaling it shall be honored.
Now, if you don't have a level 3 biohazard facility, you shall not be allowed to smoke.
My right is constantly violated almost everyday.
Unless you are making a health related argument. That is a different right other than you don't want it, that is a health concern, which is why smoking inside is predominately not allowed.
I'm all for personal rights... but they come with personal responsibilities that are upon you.
That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke.
Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted"; they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind of thing (our fore-fathers did).
> When one's personal liberty crash with other's
> personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If
> you believe there is a right to smoke, think
> about the violation of other's right.
I'm not blind to the pragmatism of public spaces and near outside entrances, etc. That said, your premise is wrong and too narrow. Which is probably a reflection on the greater issues becoming ever more relevant to shutting down conversations, ideas and election meddling that is coming to light. It's probably time for people to start actually listening to ideas they don't agree with, empathize with those positions and rationally come to reasonable compromise. Right now there's only escalation and it will likely lead to a very real, very violent and very different civil war.
I doubt you'll stop driving tomorrow to spare my health though.
Often we end up doing things to make sure they have more profit. I wouldn't be surprised if this e-cigarettes ban is coming from cigarette manufacturers lobbying for it.
You just sighed a death warrant to HN, and 95% of all corporations that make a profit.
Unfortunately there's not very much actual evidence yet that e-cigarettes help people quit smoking, and according to the actual ordinance under discussion, there's some evidence that it can actually increase smoking.
> And while there is some evidence that the use of e-cigarettes by adults may support smoking cessation under certain circumstances, a 2018 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report concluded that there was moderate evidence that e-cigarette use in fact increases the frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking in the future.
Anyway, I don't smoke and I don't understand why should I endure cigarette smoke on the street.
Personal freedoms.
I've first-hand seen the effects this Killer Drug has on the poor people caught in its grasp. One time, we were at dinner, and my friend stepped outside for five minutes for a vape. I've seen lost souls on so much nicotine, their focus is heightened significantly and they get this almost imperceptible shake in their hands, someone not even looking for it might not notice it but it must be devastating for them. Have you ever been so wasted drunk, then used nicotine to level out and pivot back toward functionality? I haven't, thank the lord.
All of this, and these poor people are also forced into paying Big Juul dozens of dollars a month. I mean, a Juul pod costs about $3, imagine if a coffee from Starbucks or a soda were to cost that much!
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 idiot to use one safely. Nicotine salt (the type used in juul and smok nord, among others) are the best- balance of nicotine from the sub-ohm types without the obscene amount of vapor pouring into your lungs, and the filter doesn't constantly clog / burn like the older, smaller pen and marker varieties.
Does it suck that also makes them perfect for teens to hide their addiction? Sure. Then again, there's also a market starting to boom for tobacco-free nicotine pouches, using tea leaves or other filler. It's also way, way cheaper to get the liquid for vaping online than it is in stores anyway.
This ban, at the scope of the city, won't help teens, and it's only going to hurt the people living there. For better or worse, drugs like caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and THC are here to stay.
Candy cigarettes. Big League Chew. And now e-cigarettes. It's common (and now scientifically documented) knowledge that tobacco companies have used these types of flavors and products to target young smokers. There is decades of evidence and little reason to believe it won't continue.
Whether it's 'fair' to adults in terms of how many flavors they have access to is up for debate but the lawmakers' reasoning is sound.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118335/
> Advocates of public health care consider candy cigarettes (cigarette sweets) one example of the way in which international trademark or copyright laws are violated to promote tobacco products to children.1,2 People with vested interests in confectionery and tobacco have denied these claims and argued that restrictions on confectionery resembling tobacco products are unnecessary. We review recently available documents from the tobacco industry, which describe cooperation between the manufacturers of tobacco and candy cigarettes, ineffectual trademark enforcement, evidence that candy cigarettes may promote smoking, suppression of unfavourable findings from research sponsored by the confectionery industry, and successful attempts to avoid legislation or regulation.
> Summary points
> * Candy products that mimic packaging of tobacco brands may promote smoking in young people
> * Executives of both the tobacco and confectionery industries have regarded candy cigarettes as good advertising to future smokers
> * Some tobacco companies granted confectioners permission to use cigarette pack designs and tolerated trademark infringement
> * Children who have used candy cigarettes are more likely to become smokers
> * Unfavourable research sponsored by the US candy cigarette industry was suppressed
> * Elimination of candy cigarettes and other confectionery resembling tobacco products may help achieve public health goals of reducing tobacco use in young people
One is a 18+ only product (or 21+ in California) the other is in candy stores kids frequent and purchase. One is heavily restricted on advertising ESPECIALLY to youth, the other isn't (or wasn't, I don't know the current rules of big league chew).
Fruity e-cigs are made for adults, purchased by adults, advertised to adults, and are illegally obtained by teens. Candy cigerettes, and big league chew is made for kids, purchasable by kids, advertised to kids, all hoping to later get them addicted to the products they actually represent.
Juul has never even hinted at teenage use of their product. They’re fanatically trying to position themselves as a “switch” product for smokers.
Do you have kids? They love what their friends have, and really really like candy flavors.
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?
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.
Because the companies themselves have admitted to marketing towards this demographic. [1]
The market was wildly unregulated and it was printing free money for these companies to target kids and sell these pods in retail stores. Heck I even remember going to a gamestop and seeing video game style vape pods.
I'm not going to comment on the ban itself, but I think it is reasonable to assume that these companies have very big incentives to target minors and create brand loyalty early on since regulations can be quite murky regarding e-cigarettes.
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2018/11/16/t...
https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/ctp-newsroom/e-liquids-...
Just look at that packaging! It's aimed directly at kids. JFC, it's even got the leprechaun and rainbow on it, same font, same little marshmallow shapes, just like the cereal.
'Oh, but adults like colors too!'
Give me a break.
I can think of a dozen people off the top of my head that regularly smoke but say "it's not smoking, it's just hookah, it's a social thing". I guarantee you, if there weren't hookah bars and instead were "cheap-cigarette bars" exactly none of them would smoke.
Then with 'e-cigarettes' you have flavours like 'blueberry pie' 'brownies' 'waffles' pretty much anything you could ever want. You're going to sit there and tell me you don't think if a minor gets their hands on one will be like "oh man, this grape jolly rancher flavor is awesome, but I think there is nicotine in it so I must never ever ever touch it again"?
I was watching something on Hulu or Netflix this weekend that was high school aged characters and there were kids puffing away on liquid nicotine rigs in the background of multiple scenes.
If they think banning is a solution to vaping and it’ll be successful, why not ban syringes —I’m sure they’re equally effective.
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 the most harmful to health on store shelves, where they believe they can't keep it from being purchased by minors.
The headline should read, "San Fransisco insists that minors switch to cigarettes." That's the only rational conclusion any sane person could draw from this.
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.
They aren't throwing money at this one, obviously.
Chicago - 23%
New York - 21%
San Francisco - 13%
Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware that people don't like their smoke and they make some effort to keep it out of people's faces, but vaping isn't smoking, it's vaping, and cool and less harmful than cigarettes, so who could possibly object to vape smoke filling the air? /s
Great, ban all advertising of nicotine products. I'd be fine with banning soft drink ads while we're at it. However, what does this to for public health when the harm reduction option is removed and literally the most harmful option available is for sale by the very system that SF doesn't trust to keep its products away from children?
Let's assume what you say is correct, that they're marketing it for kids. The correct action isn't to ban it, it's to ban the marketing.
Can you name any examples of this marketing for a curious reader? After the "blu" e-cigarette commercials were kicked offline several years ago, the only marketing I've seen for e-cigarettes are point-of-sale ads in gas stations or tobacco shops.
- thank you for smoking
So now you have a new issue.
The (wholly unfounded by extant evidence)theory is that substantial numbers of teens who vape are going to move on to the more harmful cigarettes, and so e-cigarettes should be discouraged. Great. However, if that's your theory, step one should be ban regular cigarettes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB-WCX6ndow&feature=youtu.be...
Because of this belief by vapers, in my experience they tend to be more indiscriminate about where they puff and exhale...the end result is far more exposure to second-hand vape than second hand cigarette smoke.
You're gonna have to source that claim, because that's insane to suggest. The pods are definitely bad for the environment, but relatively speaking when compared to, say, large-sized McDonalds cups or the dozens of cigarette butts a smoker may go through in a single day, one little 2cm by 2cm piece of plastic every few days doesn't seem like it should be top-of-mind.
To be clear, I no longer smoke.
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.
Whereas companies that harm the public often don't even care about the first order effects of their business.
We don't know if vaping is safe. So, using the precautionary principle, you could ban it or restrict it for non-smokers until we get more data. Public Health deals with population sizes, not individuals. Imagine 100,000 non smokers take up vaping. Some of them will be harmed (because nothing is risk free). We need to have a discussion about how many people being harmed is an acceptable risk, and how we communicate that risk to users.
And there's some evidence that people who start vaping with nicotine-containing products will become addicted to nicotine and move to tobacco. That isn't helped by companies going out of their way to design a more addictive vaping product. This is another reason to restrict vaping products and only allow them to be used by people who smoke tobacco.
Personally, I disagree with the ban and I prefer Public Health England's stance. I think banning vaping while allowing internal combustion engine vehicles on the road is dumb. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-tobacco-bonds-work-an...
That said, this is 100% showboating for the 'family friendly' schmoe vote. There is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent online purchases.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-releases/2018/12/...
>Reported use of vaping nicotine specifically in the 30 days prior to the survey nearly doubled among high school seniors from 11 percent in 2017 to 20.9 percent in 2018. More than 1 in 10 eighth graders (10.9 percent) say they vaped nicotine in the past year, and use is up significantly in virtually all vaping measures among eighth, 10th and 12th graders.
It's already illegal for kids to buy them, but it's trivial for them to just get'm anyway when the shops are already selling them. This will mean that kids will have to leave the city to get it, or get it on the black market. That will reduce usage, and send a message to other cities that it's a tenable proposition (somebody had to be the first to ban it).
There are valid issues. The typical anti-prohibition ones that crop up are "criminal black market uprising" i.e. the mob in Chicago during alcohol prohibition. I'm not sure this is as valid as vape usage isn't as prevalent as alcohol, nor is it as integral a part of our culture. Worth watching, though.
Another issue is the apparent hypocrisy - for some reason, cigarettes can still be sold in the city, besides being decidedly more disgusting, environmentally unfriendly, and unhealthy. On the one hand, they got this vape ban through quick, so it might finally allow the banning of tobacco products as a whole to come through as well. On the other hand, why target vapes before cigarettes? I have no idea.
In any case, the goal is to get kids to stop smoking. Doing one part of that (banning juuls) isn't the entire battle, and shouldn't be treated as such.
There's the devil's advocate argument. I personally believe that a better solution is no prohibition, but massive tax to ensure the proper cost is being levied on these products - i.e., for cigarettes, purchasers need to offset their decision by providing the State with the funds to cover the environmental, public health, and public image impact of the cigarettes. Similar to the carbon tax argument. Furthermore, government resources being levied on educational outreach to ensure that the public is aware of the genuine detriments to these kinds of products. Finally (this is already implemented), ensuring companies like Marlboro aren't allowed to make false claims regarding the unhealthiness of their products, even hinting as such through imagery (i.e. showing an ad of a doctor smoking or something).
Making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.
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?
But: Vaping! Freak out! NIMBY! Move fast!
Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.
The city is attempting to address this very complicated problem and invest in shelters / affordable housing. A lot of wealthy home owners protest when they attempt to build housing for the poor (in their backyard). I'd argue the homeless problem in SF is more of a national / United States issue than SF specifically.
>Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago
I haven't been to Chicago in like half a decade but I don't think the roads in SF are terrible?
>Horrendous traffic? Do nothing
Traffic isn't bad unless you spend all of your time commuting in the East Bay, the Peninsula, or you pick terrible driving times on the weekend. During the work week the traffic within the city outside of FiDi is usually fine (which is most of the city). Outside of SF proper traffic is definitely pretty bad though, especially in the East Bay.
I can usually leave on a Saturday at 8am, get to upper North Bay (Novato, etc), crank out a 5+ mile hike, grab lunch, and be back at home by 11:30am without hitting any traffic. People who decide to sleep in and leave at 11am definitely hit a ton of traffic (because that's a terrible driving time).
>Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.
I don't really get it, I imagine it's more of a jab towards Juul than anything else.
Surely you must be exaggerating? How quickly do you cover 5 miles hiking? How quickly do you eat lunch for that matter?
Roads: down town is like a warzone! Huge potholes everywhere.
Traffic...ummm, east bay/south bay are where most people live. Also traffic in the city is terrible too. Your Saturday routine sounds like you don't leave Marin...which sure, yeah, not a ton of traffic.
Issues with e-cigarettes:
1) they bypass laws regarding cigarette advertising: compare e-cig packaging with cigarette packaging; this is problematic, especially for youth (the non-users most likely to be vulnerable to advertising for such products)
2) contrary to what is portrayed, they are not interested in helping people quit tobacco usage: tobacco companies have a large stake in this business
3) e-cigs minimize the danger of tobacco, by making the "delivery mechanism" seem most problematic, and thus "solvable"
4) there are other methods to deal with cigarette addiction (nicotine addiction, in particular): they just aren't as sexy
As for the law itself, it sets a historic precedent (if it truly bans e-cigs outright, rather than just on city property/public spaces): tobacco products can no longer skirt flat out prohibition.
I find it ridiculous that:
1) Juul's spokesperson cites "thriving black market" creation as a problematic side effect of this law: the point of prohibition is not to stamp out usage entirely (as history has shown this is not feasible), but to make it more difficult than usual to obtain said prohibited product. Its all about probability. Furthermore, when it comes to habits, even small barriers to existing habits can go a long way in changing them (and conversely, removing small barriers to new habits can go a long way in promoting them).
2) Commenters claim that e-cig users can just go to other jurisdictions, making this law "pointless": again, its about introducing barriers.
The law is far from a perfect solution, and I doubt it was intended to be, but it's just a small step in the right direction.
Finally, I think substance abuse problems fundamentally come from a lack of satisfaction/connection with the world around us. There are a billion and one ways to handle this issue, and I think normalizing substance usage only works as a barrier to usage (e.g. Netherlands: remove the "sex factor" due to "prohibition") when the substance has already been commonplace for years. E-cigs are new enough that prohibition can send strong signals to people who might be considering getting into it, especially because as a society we have successfully built quite a lot of "energy" behind the idea that tobacco usage in general is fairly harmful/not sexy (c.f. the situation with alcohol, where it remains synonymous with "socializing").
Is the problem advertising, or advertising to minors, of nicotine products? Then ban that.
Is the problem that minors are able to buy vapes even though they shouldn't be able to? Then strengthen enforcement (ah, but that costs money).
Is the problem that some vape products are too easily smuggled into schools and look like USB sticks? Fine, then set a minimum size requirement on vaping devices. Heck, mandate they be colored a bright primary color.
Who cares what Juul or the tobacco industry says? They will say whatever they need to say to sell stuff, we know that. What matters is that vaping is substantially less harmful than tobacco by all accounts.
Personally, I could potentially get behind a total ban on tobacco, as it is very harmful and costly to society, although I'm generally anti-prohibition. But what makes no sense in any possible universe is banning vaping while keeping cigarettes legal.
I guess it depends on what happens if you break this law. If police officers use violence against you if you use an e-cigarette then that is way, way wrong. Violence should not be used when no violence is happening and the person hasn't defrauded or hurt anyone.
How nice of you to think of the homeless too. Where do you want to drive them to?
SF City is one of the most corrupt institutions I know.
[1]: https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-som...
¹https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...
Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape, though I believe there should be incredibly strong regulations against companies benefiting from the sale of addictive chemicals. The interesting conversation to me is how to protect children and inform the public while not compromising liberties that don't need to be compromised.
[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparison-of-the-effe...
From the abstract: "For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes."
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.
- Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org
- https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board
Or if you have thoughts about this particular issue, it is now in Mayor Breed's hands:
- MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org
- Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org
- https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board
Or if you have thoughts about this particular issue, it is now in Mayor Breed's hands:
- MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org
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 (or further) for their vape pens/juice.
Are they trying to make the health consequences of their existing drug abuse problems even worse?
The rich and politically-connected SF elite figure this'll kill the underclass faster by pushing them toward cigarettes.
\end{tinfoil}
More seriously, I'm more-or-less in favor of banning e-cigarettes... if they actually bothered to ban actual cigarettes, too. The failure to pass a general nicotine ban has turned a presumably-well-intentioned piece of legislation into yet another paver on the road to Hell.
EDIT: apparently the actual laws are more nuanced than that, and while they do specifically target electronic cigarettes, that targeting is as an example of a class of product not previously considered under existing legislation. I haven't read through the full details on the relevant ordinances[1][2], but it ain't quite as simple as "SF wants to extort Juul for money"; on the surface they actually seem pretty well-reasoned.
[1]: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...
[2]: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...
What the fuck, SF?
This is just another moral panic.
Banning vaping and not tobacco keeps with the aesthetic of embracing tradition and rejecting technology. Ridiculous, but unsurprising.
I don’t think this health issue really matters because if someone is addicted to smoking regular cigarettes that only affects them. Pollution from e-cigarettes on the other hand is bad for everyone, even the non-smokers.
The specific ordinance (#190312) that passed is covered on this page: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574...
That page links to this video of the discussion last week on the measure (no video yet from today's meeting): http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=1...
The ordinance just passed the Board of Supervisors and will need to be signed by Mayor London Breed to go into effect.
There are no minutes from today's Board of Supervisors meeting posted yet, but you can see from last week's minutes that the ordinance has support from all 11 members of the board: https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf
If you want to comment on this legislation, I think the best way at this point is to contact London Breed's office by calling (415) 554-6141 or emailing MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org. Again, the mayor has to sign the legislation before it becomes law.
A side effect of requiring refillable pods may be an increased initial cost for the device and a bottle of juice, but at the moment there are refillable systems that are cheaper (and lower quality) than Juul.
As far as the waste from batteries and the risk of devices not being disposed of properly, my personal device actually recommends contacting the manufacturer or a shop that sells the product to perform a proper battery replacement. The old battery is then disposed of safely.
Vaping in a way that affects other people is always wrong, but until there is a push for society to call out the users who vape in improper places, legislation will not fix the issue. I would like to see more efforts to educate current or potential users about the risks of vaping and also the risks of misusing their devices. The current culture of vaping cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect the health issues that can from from it, as the vaping community seems to always fight back against any possible health risks.
Also, I hate it when cigarette smokers throw butts on the ground or in the gutter. I've had yelling matches with people on the street over it.
I understand the issues with vaping, but seriously, this is just insane.
1) so vaping pot is ok? Vs nicotine
2) the largest fucking evape co (JUUL) is hq in sf
3) JUUL is investing heavily into vape tech and cannabis
4) have you ever been to any place in SF without smokers
5) SF has the highest number of michelin starred resta of any city on the planet - which means that you have a bunch of stressed out industry ppl who are going to smoke cigs/vape cigs
—
Also, who the heck is “passing” this bullshit. They should have a /r/ for “stupid things sf wants to do”
I dont smoke cigs or vape or even smoke cannabis!!! Yet i build cannabis tech. But get your nimby ass out of here and stop acting progressive.
Progressive is to force the tech companies to provide data and services to help you manage city sentiment.
Because youre failing at being progressive.
I can understand wanting to control access to something that kids are getting into, but it feels like we're repeating some mistakes here.
It’ll be interesting to see if taking BART/muni down to Daly City will be a problem.
Yes, the prevalence of smoking was a problem; yes, it's social acceptability in places people had to be (workplaces for example) impacted the health of people who didn't want it; and yes, some people still get addicted with sad consequences.
BUT, at some point you have to let people have their freedom to choose and not stop people using nicotine products who understand the risks and don't have dependence issues.
Vaping tobacco products is excellent for quitting because the nicotine delivered is less effective. There is not less of it, it has diminished desirable effects.
MAOIs are drugs which inhibit a kind of enzyme in the brain and among other effects have strong drug interactions increasing the potency of many psychoactive drugs.
Cigarette smoke either contains or has similar effects to MAOIs the effect which is significantly more addictive [1] nicotine.
But e-cigs are banned?
That's messed up. If you're going to protect people's health (at the expense of some freedom) be consistent about it.
I don't know why I keep expecting consistency in my public policy but I am once again thoroughly disappointed.
Which imo is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco. I don't understand the hysteria.
I got a recruiting email from Juul a couple of weeks ago : "Help power the movement to end cigarette-related deaths!"
That's bullshit. From all the stats I have seen so far (and to be fair, since I don't smoke, it is not a subject I follow very closely), e-cigarettes are on track to negate all the progress made on young smokers.
A good proportion of the teens that start vaping and go on to start smoking cigarettes would not have started smoking without juul.
And before somebody starts claiming that Juul has zero responsability there, Juul is also paying social influencer directly targetting teens.
Let this be a lesson - politicians will greenlight you as long as you fill their coffers
We need new blood in our city government.
The city supes want e-cigs regulated by the FDA before they are sold, just like regular cigarettes are.
Just because FDA approval is not mandatory until 2022 does not mean that Juul can't submit an application for FDA approval now, if it wants to sell in SF.