18 ms·

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

240 points by squiggy22 7y ago

webninja 7y ago
Bold move by the city!
whymsicalburito 7y ago
But regular cigarettes are still fully legal?
- ducktypegoose 7y ago
  Right?
- jasonhansel 7y ago
  Yes, but teens apparently don't think regular cigarettes are (as) cool.
  - baby 7y ago
    And forbidding something definitely makes it uncool amirite?
    - brokenmachine 7y ago
      If you're claiming that forbidding e-cigs makes them cooler, then that might be a better overall outcome because the people who desperately want to be cool will migrate to the suddenly cooler illegal e-cigs.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  And needles for heroin distributed for free
  - skyyler 7y ago
    Do you want needles for heroin distributed for free or do you want your tax dollars to be spent on treating easily preventable diseases because it's hard to obtain needles? Making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      1. I'd prefer to spend my money as I see fit through charity. Bureaucrats didn't distribute mosquito nets across Africa, Bill and Melinda Gates did. 2. If the government is going to take my money, they should be spending it on treatment of the underlying issues. Not putting a bandaid on the needle diseases.
      - blkhawk 7y ago
        Well sometimes a Band-aid is the best solution to a problem absent a workable alternative.
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      There are some very happy drug dealers that get government subsidies out there in the city
huffmsa 7y ago
It's almost like they could address the heroin needles all over the streets, but choose not to. Such brave. Wow.
kart23 7y ago
So all these people hooked on juul are gonna switch to real cigs. Nice.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Sure but... it's sort of crazy that juul has been allowed to get a whole new generation of folks hooked on tobacco. There's been a myth spread around that e-cigs exist solely as a more healthy alternative to traditional cigs - they are more healthy but those candy flavours have resulted in my office now having more smokers in it than ever before... and they're all under 23.
  - jdhn 7y ago
    Smokers, as in cigarette smokers, or as in e-cigarette smokers? I thought all the candy flavored tobacco cigs (minus menthols) were blown out of the water back in 2011 or whenever the new tobacco act was passed. Interestingly enough, the law led to clove cigarettes being relabeled to cigarillos in order to get around the law.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Vaping is not smoking. Tobacco is not nicotine. Learn the differences in health risks between the former and the latter and how much of a positive it is for people to transfer to the latter group before crying. Vaping is so much better than tobacco than we should be discussing banning alcohol before vaping as far as harm to society is concerned.
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    So called “candy flavors” attracting kids is problematic as a hypothesis for a few reasons. One is adults enjoy them. Secondly, for well over a century teenagers smoked cigarettes that were not candy flavored. They don’t care what the flavor is. Nicotine feels good. Should we ban sweet alcoholic drinks? I remember when it was the Republican Party that went to the “what about the kids?!” well to justify asinine legislation and laws.
itsaidpens 7y ago
Wow, I'm glad we've solved... - Traffic - Homelesness - Heroin Epidemic - Housing Crisis - Street Fecal Matter - Public Transportation Jesus Christ, San Francisco.
pigscantfly 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- munk-a 7y ago
  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 - they've worsened it.
  - tjr225 7y ago
    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.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      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.
      - dvtrn 7y ago
        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” disclaimer, a brand/logo, commercial ends. Seems benign enough, I can certainly see how some may be turned off by the existence of such marketing at all, is this perhaps what you meant by them being irresponsible or could you help me understand a bit better?
skellera 7y ago
Wow. Ban the way that so many have people quit their tobacco addictions with. Just enforce the existing no smoking laws. I get it’s annoying when people vape wherever but as someone who used to to quit then eventually quit vaping, we’re taking an extremely valuable tool away from people who would like to quit.
Wildgoose 7y ago
They want to ban a safer alternative to cigarettes for people addicted to nicotine? Are they trying to make the health consequences of their existing drug abuse problems even worse?
- yellowapple 7y ago
  \begin{tinfoil} 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%20Leg%20Review.pdf https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2... [2]: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...
williesleg 7y ago
Must be they didn't get enough tax revenue or kickbacks. Only explanation for that deal.
llamataboot 7y ago
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, 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.
- munk-a 7y ago
  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 devices could have been all positive.
  - lovecg 7y ago
    I can easily see that being the case, but can you point to some references with these numbers?
    - jonahhorowitz 7y ago
      From the Surgeon General: > E-cigarette use among U.S. youth and young adults is now a major public health concern. E-cigarette use has increased considerably in recent years, growing an astounding 900% among high school students from 2011 to 2015. [0] [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes/pdfs/2016_sgr_entire_report_508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes...
      - stefan_ 7y ago
yellowapple 7y ago
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 (or further) for their vape pens/juice.
- workingpatrick 7y ago
  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 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.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    Nice, thanks! Yeah, it's ridiculous that news sites seem to be deathly averse to actually linking to sources; if they took a cue from Wikipedia maybe they'd be less vulnerable to "fake news" accusations... 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%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf 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%20Leg%20Review.pdf https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...
funkjunky 7y ago
What the actual fuck
bcp2384 7y ago
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.
- QuickToBan 7y ago
  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.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    This very much HN bubble thinking. In the grand scheme of things, a very small percentage of jobs are conducive for remote work.
    - opportune 7y ago
      Almost all office jobs could be remote only.
      - InitialLastName 7y ago
        Sure, but office jobs are a fairly small portion of the overall workforce. Based on [0], it looks like the "Information", "Financial activities", "Professional and business services" and I'll assume 50% of "other" and the government jobs could be done remotely. I'm sure this is missing some jobs in the other categories, and there are certainly many, jobs in these categories that can't be done remotely, but so goes. That leaves < 30% of jobs that could be done remotely. [0] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...
1952wasntU 7y ago
Pot and tobacco is legal. Juul HQ is there. They are doing their best to destroy SF from within.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  They are muscling Juul for money. They don't want another Uber incident where they don't get any cash. SF City is one of the most corrupt institutions I know.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Soliciting a bribe?
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      A "Salesforce voluntary Contribution" to the Transit center.
      - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
        How is that a bad thing?
        conanbatt 7y ago
        Its robbery and corruption.
        SomeOldThrow 7y ago
        Show me a capitalist not being paid for their work and I’ll agree.
        conanbatt 7y ago
        I want to accept the challenge but I don't understand it. Are you asking for a case where a capitalist loses? I can show plenty even in the US. Hell, the number #1 platform of the democratic platform is to abolish private insurance, and its not tied to a buyout as far as I know.
conanbatt 7y ago
"At the same time, the City will gift free e-cigarette devices to prevent people from sharing devices and transmit diseases to each other"
zdragnar 7y ago
I'll never understand why lawmakers think that fruit and other flavorings for tobacco are aimed at getting kids hooked. It's almost like they think no adult has ever enjoyed fruit or candy, and that making teens smoke plain cigarettes will keep them from being rebellious. 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.
- graphememes 7y ago
  Because kids love candy. Adults do too, but kids much more.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    That's strange, I haven't seen any calls for bans for wine, wine coolers, candy flavored liquors, beers made with fruit such as lambics, etc. 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.
mullingitover 7y ago
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 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.
- eweise 7y ago
  You lumped all tobacco products together when really there is a specific problem with kids purchasing e-cigarettes. If cigarette rates were spiking in the same manner then maybe they would need further restrictions.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    The point still stands. It's like if you knew liquor stores would just break the law and sell alcohol to anyone who could see over the counter, and you won't do anything to stop them...instead your response is to ban only beer. 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.
    - qes 7y ago
      > instead your response is to ban only beer More like banning near beer.
    - eweise 7y ago
      You don't get it maybe because you don't have kids. e-cigarettes have a different appeal than smoking. Cigarettes are what your parents did and its not cool at all. Vaping with all the different flavors and drugs you can inhale, is all the rage. Its very hard to for schools to control because there is no real smoke and can be hidden easily. I have kids in high school and middle school and they both report lots of vaping on the bus and campus. They don't see anyone smoking cigarettes. SF cracks down on a problem. Makes perfect sense.
skwewy 7y ago
Kind of stupid. What battle does this honestly win? Isn't vaping an improvement over smoking? Vaping nicotine and e-cigarettes are both far more innocuous than marijuana and THC/CBD.
meowface 7y ago
I could understand a "secondhand smoke"-like law being applied to them, but a ban? When cigarettes are legal?
QuickToBan 7y ago
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?
- hollerith 7y ago
  The majority of voters, government workers, journalists and commentators in SF don't want to drive out the homeless.
- Simulacra 7y ago
  “New idea, cigarettes for the homeless, we'll call them hobos.”
- lolc 7y ago
  > to drive out the homeless How nice of you to think of the homeless too. Where do you want to drive them to?
  - QuickToBan 7y ago
    Actually I think that substance abuse (cigs, alcohol, heroin, etc.) is the reason why many of them are homeless to begin with. The right thing to do for them would be to medically cure their addiction, thereby making them capable of helping themselves. This is hard to accept for those who don't know how to cheaply and sustainably treat addictions.
    - noir_lord 7y ago
      Not just addiction, a significant chunk of homeless prople have a mental illness that isn’t been addressed. Given the way healthcare works in America (or doesn’t as the case may be) I’m curious how that could be addressed.
      - QuickToBan 7y ago
        Mental illness exists mostly due to controllable factors. Those who don't know of or understand these factors consider it a mystery that requires medical management. Medical management is legitimately required due to evidence of genetic or structural damage only. It is quite overused otherwise. Here are many of the somewhat avoidable factors that result in mental illnesses: (1) insufficient sleep (2) insufficient physical activity (3) serious infections (4) excessive stress (5) high BP (6) high bad cholesterol (7) insufficient omega-3s (8) unhealthy processed food intake and/or SAD diet (9) vitamin and mineral insufficiencies (10) side effects of prescription drugs, not limited to PPIs and anticholinergics (11) narcotic use or abuse If you fix the above lifestyle factors, there would be far fewer cases of "mental illness".
mattoxic 7y ago
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.
- joshanderson 7y ago
  Ecigs cause tons of litter from the refill cartridges and from the batteries. Ecigs are much worse of a pollution problem than actual cigarettes.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Really? It seems like every pack of 20 cigs, seemingly at least 10 of the filters end on the ground somewhere, apparently based on some kind of fanciful "Oh, this isn't litter somehow..." thinking.
  - renlo 7y ago
    At least with ecigs the batteries and cartridges probably end up in a trash bin instead of thrown on the ground like with cigarette butts. A single pack of cigarettes is 20 butts, and having been a smoker (and having known many other smokers), a good deal of butts are discarded wherever without care. Ecig components typically last longer than a single pack (an atomizer lasts longer than a pack of cigarettes, anywhere from 2-20 packs worth). A battery lasts longer and gets more use. So while ecig components will be thrown out, they are thrown away much less frequently than cigarette butts are thrown out. To be clear, I no longer smoke.
  - tanseydavid 7y ago
    How do you feel about Keurig K-Cups?
  - 013a 7y ago
    The, uh, reuseable and rechargeable batteries? 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.
kaycebasques 7y ago
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?
- vasilipupkin 7y ago
  there is an epidemic of childhood vaping going on and they aren't really going to switch to cigarettes because cigarettes are no longer cool.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  Sure, it might be a bad thing for SF if too many people stop smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes. In the late 90s tobacco settlements, States and municipalities got payments from tobacco companies. Some of them traded that annuity income for up-front bonds. If too many people quit smoking, they might have to pay back those bonds[1]. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-tobacco-bonds-work-and-what-can-go-wrong https://www.propublica.org/article/how-tobacco-bonds-work-an...
- DanBC 7y ago
  Vaping is much safer than smoking, so you should allow vaping while you restrict tobacco. 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-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
- 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fady 7y ago
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.
- phil248 7y ago
  Forget about big tobacco? Are you kidding? Bans like these are a huge boon to big tobacco. I'm sure they're writing thank you notes to the Board of Supervisors as we speak.
baggy_trough 7y ago
Really, really awful legislation. Just shows you what a terrible job the SF supervisors are doing.
- bogidon 7y ago
  You can write to them about your feelings. - Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org - https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board 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 - https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed
mahgnous 7y ago
Cigarette sales just went up in San Fran, stupid stupid stupid.
workingpatrick 7y ago
Seems like politicians just trying to win public favor by taking broad swings at a hot topic, rather than trying something that would actually protect the youth, or anyone for that matter. How has history not convinced these people that prohibition is ineffective and a waste of public funds?
vernie 7y ago
Cool, good to see that all the other problems are solved.
Simulacra 7y ago
Of all the things they could be doing… taking a crap in the streets is fine, but vaping is not. Got it.
- bogidon 7y ago
  You can write to them about your feelings that they should be focusing on different things. - Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org - https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board 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 - https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Do you think they care if you waste your time on that? The board has proven to be incompetent for decades. The government of SF is fundamentally broken.
    - bogidon 7y ago
      I think that your comment is counterproductive. Even if the board wouldn't listen today, if more people wrote, more people would feel a sense of engagement with their city, thus more people would do other things, and more things would change. Also, just how much time do you think this would "waste" out of your day? You could do it sitting on the toilet.
      - kortilla 7y ago
        There is no evidence that having people voice their concerns to unconcerned idiots is in anyway productive. If anything, talking to deaf ears makes you feel like you have even less of a voice.
systematical 7y ago
Then ban cigarettes too? SF is a joke.
hollerith 7y ago
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?
- phil248 7y ago
  The idea that my local government is telling me I can't have a perfectly legal product delivered to my home is infuriating.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    You can easily buy juul pods off the street in the mission. I'm guessing that's gonna become a booming business.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    I'm not from US so I was pretty surprised to see that a city would have jurisdiction to do something like that.
    - hollerith 7y ago
      The city I live in (in the US) collects sales tax from online retailers, so I am inclined to think that the government of SF has some way to inflict pain on the online retailers that ignore this ban.
- romwell 7y ago
  And if the retailer is out-of-state, is that interfering with interstate trade?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vuln 7y ago
All of the issues Californians face and this is all they can accomplish? Another ban? The largest economy in the US and this is it? What a shithole. Literally.
msie 7y ago
So, like in Chicago with the gun-stores, you'll have vape stores open up just outside the city limits. It's not illegal to vape, just to sell vaping products or ship vaping products to SF addresses.
cm2187 7y ago
There is a bit of a contradiction in banning e-cigarettes "for the good of the children" while legalising cannabis, which is known to have adverse effects on teenagers.
jdhn 7y ago
This just screams of a moral panic that's no different from when Congress held hearings about how violent music lyrics or violent video games were corrupting the youth.
- driverdan 7y ago
  It's worse because music lyrics are protected speech and can't be banned.
audi0slave 7y ago
Pretty ironic given the same day Juul buys[1] 123 Mission for approx 400 million dollars. [1]: https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-soma-tower/ https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-som...
- baby 7y ago
  Woot! This is NCC Group’s office. Are they getting kicked out?
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    I work in this building, but not for NCC Group. The word is "yes, once our lease is up." I assume all tenants are in the same boat.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  It's not ironic at all. Juul is buying the building because no one wants to rent to them.
writepub 7y ago
This has to be political, as singling out vaping while allowing alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, AND requesting tax dollars for "safe spaces" for drug injection, make zero common sense. Let this be a lesson - politicians will greenlight you as long as you fill their coffers
0x70dd 7y ago
Almost 2 years ago I saw a comment on HN from a guy who quit smoking after reading Alan Carr's "The Easy Way". As a person who was heavily addicted, often smoking more than a pack a day, struggling to quit for good, I decided to read the book. It did wonders - for almost 2 years I haven't smoked and I don't miss it. It also helped friends to whom I recommended the book. I wanted to drop a comment here in case I can inspire others to give it a try.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  A friend of mine who I was hounding for years to quit got this book six months ago and quit. Then he gave it to his dad and he quit. I was fortunate enough to quit six years ago but it sounds like this book is really transformative. I haven’t read it myself, only seen these effects.
  - kaycebasques 7y ago
    This intrigues me. I'm not addicted to smoking but am going to check the book out because I'm sure I'll pick up self-discipline tricks from it.
kappi 7y ago
Vaping is epidemic in US middle schools and high schools. Restrooms are filled with vaping smoke and causing lot of problems for others. Schools are not doing anything about it.
- decebalus1 7y ago
  So.. should we ban everything which teens find trendy for everyone? E-cigs are already age-restricted, same as alcohol and weed (which kids are also consuming). Why is vaping specifically targeted? Perhaps we should go after the schools which are not doing anything about it or after the parents who aren't paying attention to their kid's finances? This is just another moral panic.
phil248 7y ago
Imagine if San Francisco could come up with some similarly hardline solutions to our actual problems!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bmer 7y ago
I do not understand why this thread is so against this legislation. 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").
- superkuh 7y ago
  I think most people are against prohibition because prohibition brings in police violence to a situation where there was no violence. 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.
blackflame7000 7y ago
I can’t help but question if this is really how the forefathers intended the land of the free to solve difficult problems by simply banning them. All this hope for a better future is making a worse present with no real proof that will even payoff.
dannykwells 7y ago
I f hate SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing. Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago (which gets tons of snow): do nothing. Horrendous traffic? Do nothing. 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.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  >SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing 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.
  - tanseydavid 7y ago
    "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." Surely you must be exaggerating? How quickly do you cover 5 miles hiking? How quickly do you eat lunch for that matter?
    - 7y ago
slowrabbit 7y ago
E-Cigarette Nazis fuck off
colechristensen 7y ago
The moral panic regarding tobacco and nicotine is well past its expiration date. 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. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026
cheriot 7y ago
I swear officer, I'm high. This is all weed! /s I can understand wanting to control access to something that kids are getting into, but it feels like we're repeating some mistakes here.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Wait, they are banning e-cigarettes but not normal more dangerous cigarettes? How does that even make sense?
fromthestart 7y ago
I have yet to read or hear any reason that vaping nicotine is harmful, beyond addiction potential. Which imo is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco. I don't understand the hysteria.
samstave 7y ago
So this sounds super ridiculous: 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.
exabrial 7y ago
Why though?
scottlegrand2 7y ago
Seems ludicrous to ban vaping without banning smoking. I wouldn't ban either personally, but if you're going to ban one...
- colechristensen 7y ago
  "Queers hate techies". I saw it spraypainted on the sidewalk a while back. Banning vaping and not tobacco keeps with the aesthetic of embracing tradition and rejecting technology. Ridiculous, but unsurprising.
  - kaycebasques 7y ago
    The "queers hate techies" thing is all over. While walking down Valencia once and checking out ATA's window gallery, I got the impression that the vandalism might be coming from them. Or someone masquerading as ATA. [1] http://www.atasite.org/ http://www.atasite.org/
oarabbus_ 7y ago
So I can still buy a pack of cigarettes at any corner store - just not an e-cigarette? What the fuck, SF?
- thatswrong0 7y ago
  I can't help but think of San Francisco as a giant joke that can be used to make fun of liberals. "San Francisco first city to ban e-cigs, leaving cigarettes perfectly legal" reads like something from the Onion.
scarejunba 7y ago
Haha, I wonder how much of an effect this is going to have. Most SF kids know how to take BART down to Daly City and everyone knows enforcement of using a vape is not going to happen. Like you could always smoke weed on the streets of SF. It was defacto legal for years. It’ll be interesting to see if taking BART/muni down to Daly City will be a problem.
bogidon 7y ago
Instead of writing short rages or immediately drawing party lines, those who enjoy consuming nicotine might benefit from writing openly and honestly about the fact that they enjoy these products. Perhaps mention the fact that current research leans in the direction that secondhand vapor is less harmful than secondhand smoke [1] and so vaping could be treated as more of an individual freedom. 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-effects-of-e-cigarette-vapor-and-McAuley-Hopke/531a2a28e64e69b62070daf161992f94de9636e1 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."
- phil248 7y ago
  "Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape..." 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.
e40 7y ago
I have never smoked cigarettes, and I have a severe reaction to the smoke from them, when merely walking behind people on the sidewalk. I have never had a single, negative reaction to vape smoke. My nose doesn't even detect it. 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.
itsaidpens 7y ago
I've been shadow banned! YAY! I hope you HN mods get cancer of the dick.
notus 7y ago
Good, this some Joe Camel all over again.
huevosabio 7y ago
Sigh... with all the real and urgent problems the city (homelessness, housing shortage, vehicle break-ins, etc.) has they somehow have time to enact garbage laws. We need new blood in our city government.
tanakachen 7y ago
The real reason this ban is good is because e-cigarettes cause lots of plastic (cartridge) and battery pollution. Regular cigarettes believe it or not are not as bad for the environment (even the filters break down after a while). 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.
- driverdan 7y ago
  That's even more foolish than banning straws. There are so many other worse waste producing things like single use takeout containers and Keurig pods.
soup10 7y ago
Hundreds of people openly selling and shooting heroin downtown and they pass an e-cig ban, what a joke.
eridius 7y ago
So I dug up the actual ordinance itself¹ and it turns out to not be a "ban all e-cigarettes" ordinance. It is in fact "ban e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval". Which is to say, if the FDA actually does their job and approves the damn things, then they can be sold in SF again. ¹https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3912E3-BB56-420D-896E-6FEA1391287D https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...
- GhostVII 7y ago
  That's a pretty significant part which was left out of the article. I mean it is effectively a ban right now since e-cigarettes don't have approval, but requiring FDA approval seems far more reasonable than a permanent ban.
KerrickStaley 7y ago
Some background: The specific ordinance (#190312) that passed is covered on this page: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574&GUID=BABC44F3-8798-49AF-A75D-A27561A77B0D 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=10&meta_id=727356 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 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.
ben_jones 7y ago
At first I was against it, then I heard a rant from the local cornerstore about how e-ciggs were one of his best sellers and he was pissed and I realized it was probably a net good since it was both rabidly popular and really unhealthy. Sure, it's ironic cigarettes are still legal, but that doesn't mean we should stop passing marginally good laws.
RickJWagner 7y ago
"Cigarettes and other tobacco products will remain legal in the city, along with recreational marijuana." 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.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
Poop city has bigger problems than E-cigs. When will these politicians get their priorities straight?
averros 7y ago
"Liberals" are new Puritans. Same insistence on having the heavy hand of the State to force people to be virtuous (or else).
013a 7y ago
Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like San Francisco. 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.
- jasonhansel 7y ago
  We shouldn't penalize addiction. But we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    >> should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit You just sighed a death warrant to HN, and 95% of all corporations that make a profit.
    - bdamm 7y ago
      Agreed; Facebook, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Lays, Twitter, CNN, Fox, Disney, and Purdue are all examples of companies that are taking advantage of people's reward path in a basically addictive way. Maybe 95% in terms of aggregate profit.
on_and_off 7y ago
Good. 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.
m3kw9 7y ago
Wouldn’t this cause issues like drug dealers?
xparco 7y ago
Yes, only alcohol is good for the proles
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ARandomerDude 7y ago
Consistency fail: it's OK to be a pothead in SF but not smoke e-cigarettes.
lsiebert 7y ago
"After Donald Trump took office the next year, the agency said it would push back until 2022 a requirement that vape companies submit applications to continue selling their products. Once a product has FDA approval, the legislation would allow its sale in San Francisco again." 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.
paulcarroty 7y ago
Love SF, great move. Drugs and their addiction are not good for your health period.
bradgessler 7y ago
Meanwhile you can buy vape cartridges of weed at any dispensary in SF. What makes no sense is SF is going to wait for the FDA to study ecig health effects while at the same time the FDA has made its position pretty clear on weed.
eqdw 7y ago
Ban e-cigarettes, but get pot smoke blown in your face on every other street corner. I don't know why I keep expecting consistency in my public policy but I am once again thoroughly disappointed.
crms1496 7y ago
Perhaps the ban should have been targeted at ways to decrease the litter and pollution that comes from disposable vaporizer products. Other commenter have pointed out how Juul pods are treated as disposable and can end up as litter on the sidewalk like cigarettes. However, there are refillable pod systems that would cut down on behavior like that. 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.
smith1615 7y ago
I got the best online platform where anyone can find marijuana products easily. https://greenlandshop.site/ https://greenlandshop.site/

240 points by squiggy22 7y ago

webninja 7y ago

Bold move by the city!

whymsicalburito 7y ago

But regular cigarettes are still fully legal?

ducktypegoose 7y ago
Right?
jasonhansel 7y ago
Yes, but teens apparently don't think regular cigarettes are (as) cool.
- baby 7y ago
  And forbidding something definitely makes it uncool amirite?
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    If you're claiming that forbidding e-cigs makes them cooler, then that might be a better overall outcome because the people who desperately want to be cool will migrate to the suddenly cooler illegal e-cigs.
conanbatt 7y ago
And needles for heroin distributed for free
- skyyler 7y ago
  Do you want needles for heroin distributed for free or do you want your tax dollars to be spent on treating easily preventable diseases because it's hard to obtain needles? Making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    1. I'd prefer to spend my money as I see fit through charity. Bureaucrats didn't distribute mosquito nets across Africa, Bill and Melinda Gates did. 2. If the government is going to take my money, they should be spending it on treatment of the underlying issues. Not putting a bandaid on the needle diseases.
    - blkhawk 7y ago
      Well sometimes a Band-aid is the best solution to a problem absent a workable alternative.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    There are some very happy drug dealers that get government subsidies out there in the city

huffmsa 7y ago

It's almost like they could address the heroin needles all over the streets, but choose not to. Such brave. Wow.

kart23 7y ago

So all these people hooked on juul are gonna switch to real cigs. Nice.

munk-a 7y ago
Sure but... it's sort of crazy that juul has been allowed to get a whole new generation of folks hooked on tobacco. There's been a myth spread around that e-cigs exist solely as a more healthy alternative to traditional cigs - they are more healthy but those candy flavours have resulted in my office now having more smokers in it than ever before... and they're all under 23.
- jdhn 7y ago
  Smokers, as in cigarette smokers, or as in e-cigarette smokers? I thought all the candy flavored tobacco cigs (minus menthols) were blown out of the water back in 2011 or whenever the new tobacco act was passed. Interestingly enough, the law led to clove cigarettes being relabeled to cigarillos in order to get around the law.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Vaping is not smoking. Tobacco is not nicotine. Learn the differences in health risks between the former and the latter and how much of a positive it is for people to transfer to the latter group before crying. Vaping is so much better than tobacco than we should be discussing banning alcohol before vaping as far as harm to society is concerned.
- nemo44x 7y ago
  So called “candy flavors” attracting kids is problematic as a hypothesis for a few reasons. One is adults enjoy them. Secondly, for well over a century teenagers smoked cigarettes that were not candy flavored. They don’t care what the flavor is. Nicotine feels good. Should we ban sweet alcoholic drinks? I remember when it was the Republican Party that went to the “what about the kids?!” well to justify asinine legislation and laws.

itsaidpens 7y ago

Wow, I'm glad we've solved... - Traffic - Homelesness - Heroin Epidemic - Housing Crisis - Street Fecal Matter - Public Transportation Jesus Christ, San Francisco.

pigscantfly 7y ago

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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
munk-a 7y ago
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 - they've worsened it.
- tjr225 7y ago
  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.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    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.
    - dvtrn 7y ago
      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” disclaimer, a brand/logo, commercial ends. Seems benign enough, I can certainly see how some may be turned off by the existence of such marketing at all, is this perhaps what you meant by them being irresponsible or could you help me understand a bit better?

skellera 7y ago

Wow. Ban the way that so many have people quit their tobacco addictions with. Just enforce the existing no smoking laws. I get it’s annoying when people vape wherever but as someone who used to to quit then eventually quit vaping, we’re taking an extremely valuable tool away from people who would like to quit.

Wildgoose 7y ago

They want to ban a safer alternative to cigarettes for people addicted to nicotine? Are they trying to make the health consequences of their existing drug abuse problems even worse?

yellowapple 7y ago
\begin{tinfoil} 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%20Leg%20Review.pdf https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2... [2]: https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...

williesleg 7y ago

Must be they didn't get enough tax revenue or kickbacks. Only explanation for that deal.

llamataboot 7y ago

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, 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.

munk-a 7y ago
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 devices could have been all positive.
- lovecg 7y ago
  I can easily see that being the case, but can you point to some references with these numbers?
  - jonahhorowitz 7y ago
    From the Surgeon General: > E-cigarette use among U.S. youth and young adults is now a major public health concern. E-cigarette use has increased considerably in recent years, growing an astounding 900% among high school students from 2011 to 2015. [0] [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes/pdfs/2016_sgr_entire_report_508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes...
    - stefan_ 7y ago

yellowapple 7y ago

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 (or further) for their vape pens/juice.

workingpatrick 7y ago
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 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.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  Nice, thanks! Yeah, it's ridiculous that news sites seem to be deathly averse to actually linking to sources; if they took a cue from Wikipedia maybe they'd be less vulnerable to "fake news" accusations... 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%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf 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%20Leg%20Review.pdf https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...

funkjunky 7y ago

What the actual fuck

bcp2384 7y ago

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.

QuickToBan 7y ago
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.
- scarface74 7y ago
  This very much HN bubble thinking. In the grand scheme of things, a very small percentage of jobs are conducive for remote work.
  - opportune 7y ago
    Almost all office jobs could be remote only.
    - InitialLastName 7y ago
      Sure, but office jobs are a fairly small portion of the overall workforce. Based on [0], it looks like the "Information", "Financial activities", "Professional and business services" and I'll assume 50% of "other" and the government jobs could be done remotely. I'm sure this is missing some jobs in the other categories, and there are certainly many, jobs in these categories that can't be done remotely, but so goes. That leaves < 30% of jobs that could be done remotely. [0] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...

1952wasntU 7y ago

Pot and tobacco is legal. Juul HQ is there. They are doing their best to destroy SF from within.

conanbatt 7y ago
They are muscling Juul for money. They don't want another Uber incident where they don't get any cash. SF City is one of the most corrupt institutions I know.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Soliciting a bribe?
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    A "Salesforce voluntary Contribution" to the Transit center.
    - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
      How is that a bad thing?
      - conanbatt 7y ago
        Its robbery and corruption.
        SomeOldThrow 7y ago
        Show me a capitalist not being paid for their work and I’ll agree.
        conanbatt 7y ago
        I want to accept the challenge but I don't understand it. Are you asking for a case where a capitalist loses? I can show plenty even in the US. Hell, the number #1 platform of the democratic platform is to abolish private insurance, and its not tied to a buyout as far as I know.

conanbatt 7y ago

"At the same time, the City will gift free e-cigarette devices to prevent people from sharing devices and transmit diseases to each other"

zdragnar 7y ago

I'll never understand why lawmakers think that fruit and other flavorings for tobacco are aimed at getting kids hooked. It's almost like they think no adult has ever enjoyed fruit or candy, and that making teens smoke plain cigarettes will keep them from being rebellious. 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.

graphememes 7y ago
Because kids love candy. Adults do too, but kids much more.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  That's strange, I haven't seen any calls for bans for wine, wine coolers, candy flavored liquors, beers made with fruit such as lambics, etc. 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.

mullingitover 7y ago

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 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.

eweise 7y ago
You lumped all tobacco products together when really there is a specific problem with kids purchasing e-cigarettes. If cigarette rates were spiking in the same manner then maybe they would need further restrictions.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  The point still stands. It's like if you knew liquor stores would just break the law and sell alcohol to anyone who could see over the counter, and you won't do anything to stop them...instead your response is to ban only beer. 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.
  - qes 7y ago
    > instead your response is to ban only beer More like banning near beer.
  - eweise 7y ago
    You don't get it maybe because you don't have kids. e-cigarettes have a different appeal than smoking. Cigarettes are what your parents did and its not cool at all. Vaping with all the different flavors and drugs you can inhale, is all the rage. Its very hard to for schools to control because there is no real smoke and can be hidden easily. I have kids in high school and middle school and they both report lots of vaping on the bus and campus. They don't see anyone smoking cigarettes. SF cracks down on a problem. Makes perfect sense.

skwewy 7y ago

Kind of stupid. What battle does this honestly win? Isn't vaping an improvement over smoking? Vaping nicotine and e-cigarettes are both far more innocuous than marijuana and THC/CBD.

meowface 7y ago

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

QuickToBan 7y ago

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?

hollerith 7y ago
The majority of voters, government workers, journalists and commentators in SF don't want to drive out the homeless.
Simulacra 7y ago
“New idea, cigarettes for the homeless, we'll call them hobos.”
lolc 7y ago
> to drive out the homeless How nice of you to think of the homeless too. Where do you want to drive them to?
- QuickToBan 7y ago
  Actually I think that substance abuse (cigs, alcohol, heroin, etc.) is the reason why many of them are homeless to begin with. The right thing to do for them would be to medically cure their addiction, thereby making them capable of helping themselves. This is hard to accept for those who don't know how to cheaply and sustainably treat addictions.
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    Not just addiction, a significant chunk of homeless prople have a mental illness that isn’t been addressed. Given the way healthcare works in America (or doesn’t as the case may be) I’m curious how that could be addressed.
    - QuickToBan 7y ago
      Mental illness exists mostly due to controllable factors. Those who don't know of or understand these factors consider it a mystery that requires medical management. Medical management is legitimately required due to evidence of genetic or structural damage only. It is quite overused otherwise. Here are many of the somewhat avoidable factors that result in mental illnesses: (1) insufficient sleep (2) insufficient physical activity (3) serious infections (4) excessive stress (5) high BP (6) high bad cholesterol (7) insufficient omega-3s (8) unhealthy processed food intake and/or SAD diet (9) vitamin and mineral insufficiencies (10) side effects of prescription drugs, not limited to PPIs and anticholinergics (11) narcotic use or abuse If you fix the above lifestyle factors, there would be far fewer cases of "mental illness".

mattoxic 7y ago

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.

joshanderson 7y ago
Ecigs cause tons of litter from the refill cartridges and from the batteries. Ecigs are much worse of a pollution problem than actual cigarettes.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Really? It seems like every pack of 20 cigs, seemingly at least 10 of the filters end on the ground somewhere, apparently based on some kind of fanciful "Oh, this isn't litter somehow..." thinking.
- renlo 7y ago
  At least with ecigs the batteries and cartridges probably end up in a trash bin instead of thrown on the ground like with cigarette butts. A single pack of cigarettes is 20 butts, and having been a smoker (and having known many other smokers), a good deal of butts are discarded wherever without care. Ecig components typically last longer than a single pack (an atomizer lasts longer than a pack of cigarettes, anywhere from 2-20 packs worth). A battery lasts longer and gets more use. So while ecig components will be thrown out, they are thrown away much less frequently than cigarette butts are thrown out. To be clear, I no longer smoke.
- tanseydavid 7y ago
  How do you feel about Keurig K-Cups?
- 013a 7y ago
  The, uh, reuseable and rechargeable batteries? 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.

kaycebasques 7y ago

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?

vasilipupkin 7y ago
there is an epidemic of childhood vaping going on and they aren't really going to switch to cigarettes because cigarettes are no longer cool.
mullingitover 7y ago
Sure, it might be a bad thing for SF if too many people stop smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes. In the late 90s tobacco settlements, States and municipalities got payments from tobacco companies. Some of them traded that annuity income for up-front bonds. If too many people quit smoking, they might have to pay back those bonds[1]. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-tobacco-bonds-work-and-what-can-go-wrong https://www.propublica.org/article/how-tobacco-bonds-work-an...
DanBC 7y ago
Vaping is much safer than smoking, so you should allow vaping while you restrict tobacco. 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-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fady 7y ago

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.

phil248 7y ago
Forget about big tobacco? Are you kidding? Bans like these are a huge boon to big tobacco. I'm sure they're writing thank you notes to the Board of Supervisors as we speak.

baggy_trough 7y ago

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

bogidon 7y ago
You can write to them about your feelings. - Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org - https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board 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 - https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed

mahgnous 7y ago

Cigarette sales just went up in San Fran, stupid stupid stupid.

workingpatrick 7y ago

Seems like politicians just trying to win public favor by taking broad swings at a hot topic, rather than trying something that would actually protect the youth, or anyone for that matter. How has history not convinced these people that prohibition is ineffective and a waste of public funds?

vernie 7y ago

Cool, good to see that all the other problems are solved.

Simulacra 7y ago

Of all the things they could be doing… taking a crap in the streets is fine, but vaping is not. Got it.

bogidon 7y ago
You can write to them about your feelings that they should be focusing on different things. - Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org - https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board 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 - https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed
- kortilla 7y ago
  Do you think they care if you waste your time on that? The board has proven to be incompetent for decades. The government of SF is fundamentally broken.
  - bogidon 7y ago
    I think that your comment is counterproductive. Even if the board wouldn't listen today, if more people wrote, more people would feel a sense of engagement with their city, thus more people would do other things, and more things would change. Also, just how much time do you think this would "waste" out of your day? You could do it sitting on the toilet.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      There is no evidence that having people voice their concerns to unconcerned idiots is in anyway productive. If anything, talking to deaf ears makes you feel like you have even less of a voice.

systematical 7y ago

Then ban cigarettes too? SF is a joke.

hollerith 7y ago

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?

phil248 7y ago
The idea that my local government is telling me I can't have a perfectly legal product delivered to my home is infuriating.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  You can easily buy juul pods off the street in the mission. I'm guessing that's gonna become a booming business.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  I'm not from US so I was pretty surprised to see that a city would have jurisdiction to do something like that.
  - hollerith 7y ago
    The city I live in (in the US) collects sales tax from online retailers, so I am inclined to think that the government of SF has some way to inflict pain on the online retailers that ignore this ban.
romwell 7y ago
And if the retailer is out-of-state, is that interfering with interstate trade?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

vuln 7y ago

All of the issues Californians face and this is all they can accomplish? Another ban? The largest economy in the US and this is it? What a shithole. Literally.

msie 7y ago

So, like in Chicago with the gun-stores, you'll have vape stores open up just outside the city limits. It's not illegal to vape, just to sell vaping products or ship vaping products to SF addresses.

cm2187 7y ago

There is a bit of a contradiction in banning e-cigarettes "for the good of the children" while legalising cannabis, which is known to have adverse effects on teenagers.

jdhn 7y ago

This just screams of a moral panic that's no different from when Congress held hearings about how violent music lyrics or violent video games were corrupting the youth.

driverdan 7y ago
It's worse because music lyrics are protected speech and can't be banned.

audi0slave 7y ago

Pretty ironic given the same day Juul buys[1] 123 Mission for approx 400 million dollars. [1]: https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-soma-tower/ https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-som...

baby 7y ago
Woot! This is NCC Group’s office. Are they getting kicked out?
- dehrmann 7y ago
  I work in this building, but not for NCC Group. The word is "yes, once our lease is up." I assume all tenants are in the same boat.
dehrmann 7y ago
It's not ironic at all. Juul is buying the building because no one wants to rent to them.

writepub 7y ago

This has to be political, as singling out vaping while allowing alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, AND requesting tax dollars for "safe spaces" for drug injection, make zero common sense. Let this be a lesson - politicians will greenlight you as long as you fill their coffers

0x70dd 7y ago

Almost 2 years ago I saw a comment on HN from a guy who quit smoking after reading Alan Carr's "The Easy Way". As a person who was heavily addicted, often smoking more than a pack a day, struggling to quit for good, I decided to read the book. It did wonders - for almost 2 years I haven't smoked and I don't miss it. It also helped friends to whom I recommended the book. I wanted to drop a comment here in case I can inspire others to give it a try.

scarejunba 7y ago
A friend of mine who I was hounding for years to quit got this book six months ago and quit. Then he gave it to his dad and he quit. I was fortunate enough to quit six years ago but it sounds like this book is really transformative. I haven’t read it myself, only seen these effects.
- kaycebasques 7y ago
  This intrigues me. I'm not addicted to smoking but am going to check the book out because I'm sure I'll pick up self-discipline tricks from it.

kappi 7y ago

Vaping is epidemic in US middle schools and high schools. Restrooms are filled with vaping smoke and causing lot of problems for others. Schools are not doing anything about it.

decebalus1 7y ago
So.. should we ban everything which teens find trendy for everyone? E-cigs are already age-restricted, same as alcohol and weed (which kids are also consuming). Why is vaping specifically targeted? Perhaps we should go after the schools which are not doing anything about it or after the parents who aren't paying attention to their kid's finances? This is just another moral panic.

phil248 7y ago

Imagine if San Francisco could come up with some similarly hardline solutions to our actual problems!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bmer 7y ago

I do not understand why this thread is so against this legislation. 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").

superkuh 7y ago
I think most people are against prohibition because prohibition brings in police violence to a situation where there was no violence. 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.

blackflame7000 7y ago

I can’t help but question if this is really how the forefathers intended the land of the free to solve difficult problems by simply banning them. All this hope for a better future is making a worse present with no real proof that will even payoff.

dannykwells 7y ago

I f hate SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing. Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago (which gets tons of snow): do nothing. Horrendous traffic? Do nothing. 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.

almost_usual 7y ago
>SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing 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.
- tanseydavid 7y ago
  "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." Surely you must be exaggerating? How quickly do you cover 5 miles hiking? How quickly do you eat lunch for that matter?
  - 7y ago

slowrabbit 7y ago

E-Cigarette Nazis fuck off

colechristensen 7y ago

The moral panic regarding tobacco and nicotine is well past its expiration date. 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. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026

cheriot 7y ago

I swear officer, I'm high. This is all weed! /s I can understand wanting to control access to something that kids are getting into, but it feels like we're repeating some mistakes here.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

Wait, they are banning e-cigarettes but not normal more dangerous cigarettes? How does that even make sense?

fromthestart 7y ago

I have yet to read or hear any reason that vaping nicotine is harmful, beyond addiction potential. Which imo is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco. I don't understand the hysteria.

samstave 7y ago

So this sounds super ridiculous: 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.

exabrial 7y ago

Why though?

scottlegrand2 7y ago

Seems ludicrous to ban vaping without banning smoking. I wouldn't ban either personally, but if you're going to ban one...

colechristensen 7y ago
"Queers hate techies". I saw it spraypainted on the sidewalk a while back. Banning vaping and not tobacco keeps with the aesthetic of embracing tradition and rejecting technology. Ridiculous, but unsurprising.
- kaycebasques 7y ago
  The "queers hate techies" thing is all over. While walking down Valencia once and checking out ATA's window gallery, I got the impression that the vandalism might be coming from them. Or someone masquerading as ATA. [1] http://www.atasite.org/ http://www.atasite.org/

oarabbus_ 7y ago

So I can still buy a pack of cigarettes at any corner store - just not an e-cigarette? What the fuck, SF?

thatswrong0 7y ago
I can't help but think of San Francisco as a giant joke that can be used to make fun of liberals. "San Francisco first city to ban e-cigs, leaving cigarettes perfectly legal" reads like something from the Onion.

scarejunba 7y ago

Haha, I wonder how much of an effect this is going to have. Most SF kids know how to take BART down to Daly City and everyone knows enforcement of using a vape is not going to happen. Like you could always smoke weed on the streets of SF. It was defacto legal for years. It’ll be interesting to see if taking BART/muni down to Daly City will be a problem.

bogidon 7y ago

Instead of writing short rages or immediately drawing party lines, those who enjoy consuming nicotine might benefit from writing openly and honestly about the fact that they enjoy these products. Perhaps mention the fact that current research leans in the direction that secondhand vapor is less harmful than secondhand smoke [1] and so vaping could be treated as more of an individual freedom. 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-effects-of-e-cigarette-vapor-and-McAuley-Hopke/531a2a28e64e69b62070daf161992f94de9636e1 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."

phil248 7y ago
"Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape..." 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.

e40 7y ago

I have never smoked cigarettes, and I have a severe reaction to the smoke from them, when merely walking behind people on the sidewalk. I have never had a single, negative reaction to vape smoke. My nose doesn't even detect it. 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.

itsaidpens 7y ago

I've been shadow banned! YAY! I hope you HN mods get cancer of the dick.

notus 7y ago

Good, this some Joe Camel all over again.

huevosabio 7y ago

Sigh... with all the real and urgent problems the city (homelessness, housing shortage, vehicle break-ins, etc.) has they somehow have time to enact garbage laws. We need new blood in our city government.

tanakachen 7y ago

The real reason this ban is good is because e-cigarettes cause lots of plastic (cartridge) and battery pollution. Regular cigarettes believe it or not are not as bad for the environment (even the filters break down after a while). 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.

driverdan 7y ago
That's even more foolish than banning straws. There are so many other worse waste producing things like single use takeout containers and Keurig pods.

soup10 7y ago

Hundreds of people openly selling and shooting heroin downtown and they pass an e-cig ban, what a joke.

eridius 7y ago

So I dug up the actual ordinance itself¹ and it turns out to not be a "ban all e-cigarettes" ordinance. It is in fact "ban e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval". Which is to say, if the FDA actually does their job and approves the damn things, then they can be sold in SF again. ¹https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3912E3-BB56-420D-896E-6FEA1391287D https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...

GhostVII 7y ago
That's a pretty significant part which was left out of the article. I mean it is effectively a ban right now since e-cigarettes don't have approval, but requiring FDA approval seems far more reasonable than a permanent ban.

KerrickStaley 7y ago

Some background: The specific ordinance (#190312) that passed is covered on this page: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574&GUID=BABC44F3-8798-49AF-A75D-A27561A77B0D 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=10&meta_id=727356 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 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.

ben_jones 7y ago

At first I was against it, then I heard a rant from the local cornerstore about how e-ciggs were one of his best sellers and he was pissed and I realized it was probably a net good since it was both rabidly popular and really unhealthy. Sure, it's ironic cigarettes are still legal, but that doesn't mean we should stop passing marginally good laws.

RickJWagner 7y ago

"Cigarettes and other tobacco products will remain legal in the city, along with recreational marijuana." 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.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

Poop city has bigger problems than E-cigs. When will these politicians get their priorities straight?

averros 7y ago

"Liberals" are new Puritans. Same insistence on having the heavy hand of the State to force people to be virtuous (or else).

013a 7y ago

Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like San Francisco. 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.

jasonhansel 7y ago
We shouldn't penalize addiction. But we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit.
- m0zg 7y ago
  >> should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit You just sighed a death warrant to HN, and 95% of all corporations that make a profit.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    Agreed; Facebook, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Lays, Twitter, CNN, Fox, Disney, and Purdue are all examples of companies that are taking advantage of people's reward path in a basically addictive way. Maybe 95% in terms of aggregate profit.

on_and_off 7y ago

Good. 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.

m3kw9 7y ago

Wouldn’t this cause issues like drug dealers?

xparco 7y ago

Yes, only alcohol is good for the proles

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ARandomerDude 7y ago

Consistency fail: it's OK to be a pothead in SF but not smoke e-cigarettes.

lsiebert 7y ago

"After Donald Trump took office the next year, the agency said it would push back until 2022 a requirement that vape companies submit applications to continue selling their products. Once a product has FDA approval, the legislation would allow its sale in San Francisco again." 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.

paulcarroty 7y ago

Love SF, great move. Drugs and their addiction are not good for your health period.

bradgessler 7y ago

Meanwhile you can buy vape cartridges of weed at any dispensary in SF. What makes no sense is SF is going to wait for the FDA to study ecig health effects while at the same time the FDA has made its position pretty clear on weed.

eqdw 7y ago

Ban e-cigarettes, but get pot smoke blown in your face on every other street corner. I don't know why I keep expecting consistency in my public policy but I am once again thoroughly disappointed.

crms1496 7y ago

Perhaps the ban should have been targeted at ways to decrease the litter and pollution that comes from disposable vaporizer products. Other commenter have pointed out how Juul pods are treated as disposable and can end up as litter on the sidewalk like cigarettes. However, there are refillable pod systems that would cut down on behavior like that. 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.

smith1615 7y ago

I got the best online platform where anyone can find marijuana products easily. https://greenlandshop.site/ https://greenlandshop.site/