10 ms·

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 Boar

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?
      - munk-a 7y ago
        I do have an example, the skytrain station I usually disembark on recently was plastered with vape ads[1][2]. I don't really see why e-cigarettes should need to advertise at all, they could simply be devices suggested to smokers by medical professionals as a cessation aid. I think we can also look to history when it comes to the flavouring of things, it used to be that medicines would be sweetened to override the natural bitter or acidic tastes of the active ingredients but this led to more abuse of those substances. [1] https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/vaping-ads-e1558133041926.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=372 https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/vaping-ad... [2] https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/web-vape-1-e1558133842121.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=720&h=379&crop=1 https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/web-vape-...
        dvtrn 7y ago
        I don't really see why e-cigarettes should need to advertise at all, they could simply be devices suggested to smokers by medical professionals as a cessation aid. Had to let this post sit for a minute before responding, and on the grounds you're offering, to really think about it and look at other examples; ultimately I think I agree with you. Your point is well met.
      - detaro 7y ago
        https://www.google.com/search?q=juul+ads&safe=off&hl=de&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=juul+ads&safe=off&hl=de&tbm=... as a starting point for ads very much on the "attract young people", not the "medically helpful device" end of the spectrum.
- nradov 7y ago
  Based on that justification, perhaps SF should also consider banning people from shooting up on the sidewalk? You know, for public health.
  - eridius 7y ago
    What, ban the use of illegal products? Novel idea!
- jasonhansel 7y ago
  Furthermore, the fact that they are so addictive is (in itself) a reason to tightly regulate them.
  - tanakachen 7y ago
    Not really. If you decide to smoke then that’s a personal decision. The bigger problem is littering from spent e-cigarette cartridges and batteries. That is a problem that affects smokers and non smokers alike. So the ban is a good idea, but unrelated to any health issues.
    - brokenmachine 7y ago
      Secondhand smoke kills hundreds of thousands of non-smokers every year. That's well beyond personal liberty.
    - lordfrikk 7y ago
      It's a personal decision with far-reaching societal impact [0]. Even types of addiction that are not obviously health-destroying can, in fact, be killing you and thus imposing indirect burden on society [1]. [0]: https://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/tobacco-smoking/ https://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/tobacco-smoking/ [1]: https://www.alternet.org/2012/09/how-gambling-can-kill-you-faster-drug-abuse-or-alcoholism/ https://www.alternet.org/2012/09/how-gambling-can-kill-you-f...
- tastygreenapple 7y ago
  I thought the health effects of e-cigs were relatively benign? I know it's common to consider the health profile of a substance with 'no substance' as the basis of comparison, but people seem to like stimulation and get it however they can. I don't like e-cigs, but I imagine they have to be one of the least harmful ways of getting stimulated. Is there a safer stimulant and do you think this ban will encourage people to use that?
  - munk-a 7y ago
    E-cigarettes greatly reduces a lot of the ash related health issues with smoking and regular ash inhalation is quite bad for you and not limited to smoking - being immersed in smoke, even just from a bon-fire, isn't great for your respiratory system. Like most other health things it's moderation that counts for ash inhalation, smoking occasionally, going to a bon-fire once a month in the summer... these are going to instantly damage your lungs but it can add up. A properly tuned vape will produce only trace amounts of ash, but hot vapes can end up ashing the liquid - this is especially prevalent in vapes that have been tuned to heat up more quickly. And, just for reference, smoking other things like an mj joint carries the same health risks. Aside from the ash related risks tobacco is highly addictive due to the nicotine and contains other toxins that can harm you in the long term. For reference, here's what Canada has to say about the chemicals[1]. [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-tobacco/vaping/risks.html#a3 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-toba...
  - WalterSear 7y ago
    Yes, they are vastly less harmful than cigarettes. Anyone who says different is misled, or misleading. They are, however, still extremely addictive. Arguably more so than cigarettes, since they enable the consumption of much higher doses of nicotine. A friend once told me, having quit nicotine and heroin, that while quitting heroin was 'like being the living dead', he could probably go through it again, but not nicotine.
    - tastygreenapple 7y ago
      > They are, however, still extremely addictive. Isn't every stimulant? I'm reluctant to ban things on the basis of their addictive potential without considering the consequences of the addiction. I'm pretty sure at least half the people I know need coffee in the morning, but I don't think that means we should ban caffeine. I don't see nicotine as objectively better or worse than caffeine so it's unfortunate that one is the target of legislation and one flows like the manna from heaven in most gathers of people. Additionally, I think there's a 'good' in letting people choose the stim that works best for them. I personally prefer amphetamine, others prefer coffee, some people find comfort in nicotine.
- driverdan 7y ago
  > E-cigarettes, since their introduction, haven't improved public health - they've worsened it. [citation needed]
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    https://www.voanews.com/science-health/us-youth-smoking-decline-stalls-and-vaping-may-be-blame https://www.voanews.com/science-health/us-youth-smoking-decl... > For decades, the percentage of high school and middle school students who smoked cigarettes had been declining. For the past three years, it has flattened, according to new numbers released Monday. There may be several reasons, but a recent boom in vaping is the most likely explanation, said Brian King of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    - refurb 7y ago
      That source says nothing about public health. Your assumption is vaping = worse public health.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        No, my assumption is "interrupting the decline in smoking = worse public health".
        refurb 7y ago
        Vaping isn’t smoking.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        Didn’t say it was. Read the quote I cited again.
quickthrower2 7y ago
How are they sold? In Australia they have the gory death warnings, are sold in cabinets with no logos (just a plain font list of brand names) and are ridiculously expensive $40 for 20. Cigars might be an exception(?)
- baby 7y ago
  The gory death warnings are the most useless counter measure I’ve seen. We have them all over in France and they have no effect. They have no effect because people still think it’s cool to smoke.
  - quickthrower2 7y ago
    Yeah they are pretty useless. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it as I got downvoted. But the other points might make some difference.
  - rbg246 7y ago
    The point of the gory death warnings is to stop new smokers from starting, to making smoking as unattractive as possible. Smokers become desensitised to the warnings really quickly from looking at them every time they smoke.
    - baby 7y ago
      It does not work.
      - rbg246 7y ago
        It does work. https://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/ https://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/ Try to gather evidence to pursue your claims
  - mdhen 7y ago
    What Australia does that other countries don't do in terms of packaging is they completely block out the branding of a pack. So like in Thailand for instance you'll have a regular Marlboro pack with a picture on the back of diseased lungs or whatever. In Australia they block out the designs of packs branding so they're just dark brown with health warnings and in white text somewhere they'll say Marlboro lights or whatever they are.
nilkn 7y ago
While I don't live in SF or even CA, I'll try to offer an explanation of why this might make sense based on what I've observed. I'm 29, which puts me sort of at the intersection of two age groups right now. I'm starting to be able to connect with older folks, and I can still connect with younger 20somethings. Nobody I know under 25 smokes cigarettes. Anecdotally, cigarettes in that age group are nearly universally abhorred. Vaping, however, is seen as counter-cultural and cool. Moreover, and perhaps worse, it's seen as nonaddictive and harmless. Yet severe, almost crippling nicotine addiction is celebrated in popular culture (e.g., https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-turner-dark-phoenix-juul https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-turner-d...). In fact, I've seen a depth of addiction to Juul that exceeds what I've seen from older pack-a-day cigarette smokers. I know folks who have to take a hit off their Juul every 3-5 minutes all day long except when sleeping. When sleeping, they won't sleep through the night continuously, and if they do they won't sleep more than six hours because they'll need to wake up and take several hits. Kids do not want to smoke cigarettes. Young people generally do not want to smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes are mostly a risk to the older generation. Juul and other brands have caused a new generation to become shockingly addicted to nicotine all over again from scratch. Of course, with all that said, one must wonder which group of people should be prioritized: kids or the older folks? This legislation is trying to protect the former at the expense of the latter (by taking away an effective smoking cessation tool). Clearly, this does not make sense in San Francisco -- a city that more or less does not have kids at all.
- tdeck 7y ago
  It's also worth noting that the unpopularity of cigarettes preceded the rise of vaping by several years. So it felt like the problem was finally being solved for a while.
  - refurb 7y ago
    The biggest issue with cigarettes was the cancer risk. Vaping is much lower risk (if any) for cancer. So even if people just swap smoking for vaping, a HUGE problem was solved.
whalesalad 7y ago
SF is completely fucked from a priorities standpoint. Really glad I no longer live anywhere near there.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  But banning the sale of e-cigarettes--in the city where smoking weed is more socially acceptable than cigarettes--is easy. Building housing and improving transit is hard and can cost you votes next election.
drawkbox 7y ago
I don't entirely understand the attacks on e-cigs and vaping. 1) e-cigs/vaping is safer with less carcinogens going into lungs. That will lead to less health issues down the line. Even if kids are getting them, which they shouldn't because it is sold in an age limited regulated market, it is still safer than cigarettes and a regulated market with good production is always safer than an unregulated black market. 2) vaping/e-cigs don't combust, so there is no fire, which almost cuts out the threat of a fire starting completely unless a battery explodes which is very rare. A burning cigarette falling will continue to burn by design every single time. 3) e-cigs/vaping leave no butts, no trash and are mostly devices people want to keep and reuse. Reusability and no pollution are what e-cigs/vaping bring. Cigarette butts are the single greatest source of ocean pollution [1], and next to gum, all over all the time. Prohibitions and illegality of substances a certain percentage of people will always use, make these areas more dangerous in use/production and make harm reduction much more difficult. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigarette-butts-are-single-greatest-source-ocean-n903661 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigar...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  It's quite simple. Not smoking at all > vaping > cigarettes. Massive progress has been made in getting kids not to take up smoking. If you're a smoker, switching to vaping is a good thing. If you're not, it's a bad thing.
  - refurb 7y ago
    This reminds me of the right wing stance on sex education. Abstinence > safe sex > unsafe sex Yes, the first is desirable, but let’s be serious, it’s not a reasonable goal for most people.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      That's a silly comparison. Smoking's been in a very successful decades-long decline due to public policy interventions. "Not smoking" is an entirely reasonable goal for most people.

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?
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I do have an example, the skytrain station I usually disembark on recently was plastered with vape ads[1][2]. I don't really see why e-cigarettes should need to advertise at all, they could simply be devices suggested to smokers by medical professionals as a cessation aid. I think we can also look to history when it comes to the flavouring of things, it used to be that medicines would be sweetened to override the natural bitter or acidic tastes of the active ingredients but this led to more abuse of those substances. [1] https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/vaping-ads-e1558133041926.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=372 https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/vaping-ad... [2] https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/web-vape-1-e1558133842121.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=720&h=379&crop=1 https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/web-vape-...
      - dvtrn 7y ago
        I don't really see why e-cigarettes should need to advertise at all, they could simply be devices suggested to smokers by medical professionals as a cessation aid. Had to let this post sit for a minute before responding, and on the grounds you're offering, to really think about it and look at other examples; ultimately I think I agree with you. Your point is well met.
    - detaro 7y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=juul+ads&safe=off&hl=de&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=juul+ads&safe=off&hl=de&tbm=... as a starting point for ads very much on the "attract young people", not the "medically helpful device" end of the spectrum.
nradov 7y ago
Based on that justification, perhaps SF should also consider banning people from shooting up on the sidewalk? You know, for public health.
- eridius 7y ago
  What, ban the use of illegal products? Novel idea!
jasonhansel 7y ago
Furthermore, the fact that they are so addictive is (in itself) a reason to tightly regulate them.
- tanakachen 7y ago
  Not really. If you decide to smoke then that’s a personal decision. The bigger problem is littering from spent e-cigarette cartridges and batteries. That is a problem that affects smokers and non smokers alike. So the ban is a good idea, but unrelated to any health issues.
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    Secondhand smoke kills hundreds of thousands of non-smokers every year. That's well beyond personal liberty.
  - lordfrikk 7y ago
    It's a personal decision with far-reaching societal impact [0]. Even types of addiction that are not obviously health-destroying can, in fact, be killing you and thus imposing indirect burden on society [1]. [0]: https://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/tobacco-smoking/ https://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/tobacco-smoking/ [1]: https://www.alternet.org/2012/09/how-gambling-can-kill-you-faster-drug-abuse-or-alcoholism/ https://www.alternet.org/2012/09/how-gambling-can-kill-you-f...
tastygreenapple 7y ago
I thought the health effects of e-cigs were relatively benign? I know it's common to consider the health profile of a substance with 'no substance' as the basis of comparison, but people seem to like stimulation and get it however they can. I don't like e-cigs, but I imagine they have to be one of the least harmful ways of getting stimulated. Is there a safer stimulant and do you think this ban will encourage people to use that?
- munk-a 7y ago
  E-cigarettes greatly reduces a lot of the ash related health issues with smoking and regular ash inhalation is quite bad for you and not limited to smoking - being immersed in smoke, even just from a bon-fire, isn't great for your respiratory system. Like most other health things it's moderation that counts for ash inhalation, smoking occasionally, going to a bon-fire once a month in the summer... these are going to instantly damage your lungs but it can add up. A properly tuned vape will produce only trace amounts of ash, but hot vapes can end up ashing the liquid - this is especially prevalent in vapes that have been tuned to heat up more quickly. And, just for reference, smoking other things like an mj joint carries the same health risks. Aside from the ash related risks tobacco is highly addictive due to the nicotine and contains other toxins that can harm you in the long term. For reference, here's what Canada has to say about the chemicals[1]. [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-tobacco/vaping/risks.html#a3 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-toba...
- WalterSear 7y ago
  Yes, they are vastly less harmful than cigarettes. Anyone who says different is misled, or misleading. They are, however, still extremely addictive. Arguably more so than cigarettes, since they enable the consumption of much higher doses of nicotine. A friend once told me, having quit nicotine and heroin, that while quitting heroin was 'like being the living dead', he could probably go through it again, but not nicotine.
  - tastygreenapple 7y ago
    > They are, however, still extremely addictive. Isn't every stimulant? I'm reluctant to ban things on the basis of their addictive potential without considering the consequences of the addiction. I'm pretty sure at least half the people I know need coffee in the morning, but I don't think that means we should ban caffeine. I don't see nicotine as objectively better or worse than caffeine so it's unfortunate that one is the target of legislation and one flows like the manna from heaven in most gathers of people. Additionally, I think there's a 'good' in letting people choose the stim that works best for them. I personally prefer amphetamine, others prefer coffee, some people find comfort in nicotine.
driverdan 7y ago
> E-cigarettes, since their introduction, haven't improved public health - they've worsened it. [citation needed]
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  https://www.voanews.com/science-health/us-youth-smoking-decline-stalls-and-vaping-may-be-blame https://www.voanews.com/science-health/us-youth-smoking-decl... > For decades, the percentage of high school and middle school students who smoked cigarettes had been declining. For the past three years, it has flattened, according to new numbers released Monday. There may be several reasons, but a recent boom in vaping is the most likely explanation, said Brian King of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  - refurb 7y ago
    That source says nothing about public health. Your assumption is vaping = worse public health.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      No, my assumption is "interrupting the decline in smoking = worse public health".
      - refurb 7y ago
        Vaping isn’t smoking.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        Didn’t say it was. Read the quote I cited again.

quickthrower2 7y ago

How are they sold? In Australia they have the gory death warnings, are sold in cabinets with no logos (just a plain font list of brand names) and are ridiculously expensive $40 for 20. Cigars might be an exception(?)

baby 7y ago
The gory death warnings are the most useless counter measure I’ve seen. We have them all over in France and they have no effect. They have no effect because people still think it’s cool to smoke.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  Yeah they are pretty useless. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it as I got downvoted. But the other points might make some difference.
- rbg246 7y ago
  The point of the gory death warnings is to stop new smokers from starting, to making smoking as unattractive as possible. Smokers become desensitised to the warnings really quickly from looking at them every time they smoke.
  - baby 7y ago
    It does not work.
    - rbg246 7y ago
      It does work. https://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/ https://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/ Try to gather evidence to pursue your claims
- mdhen 7y ago
  What Australia does that other countries don't do in terms of packaging is they completely block out the branding of a pack. So like in Thailand for instance you'll have a regular Marlboro pack with a picture on the back of diseased lungs or whatever. In Australia they block out the designs of packs branding so they're just dark brown with health warnings and in white text somewhere they'll say Marlboro lights or whatever they are.

nilkn 7y ago

While I don't live in SF or even CA, I'll try to offer an explanation of why this might make sense based on what I've observed. I'm 29, which puts me sort of at the intersection of two age groups right now. I'm starting to be able to connect with older folks, and I can still connect with younger 20somethings. Nobody I know under 25 smokes cigarettes. Anecdotally, cigarettes in that age group are nearly universally abhorred. Vaping, however, is seen as counter-cultural and cool. Moreover, and perhaps worse, it's seen as nonaddictive and harmless. Yet severe, almost crippling nicotine addiction is celebrated in popular culture (e.g., https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-turner-dark-phoenix-juul https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-turner-d...). In fact, I've seen a depth of addiction to Juul that exceeds what I've seen from older pack-a-day cigarette smokers. I know folks who have to take a hit off their Juul every 3-5 minutes all day long except when sleeping. When sleeping, they won't sleep through the night continuously, and if they do they won't sleep more than six hours because they'll need to wake up and take several hits. Kids do not want to smoke cigarettes. Young people generally do not want to smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes are mostly a risk to the older generation. Juul and other brands have caused a new generation to become shockingly addicted to nicotine all over again from scratch. Of course, with all that said, one must wonder which group of people should be prioritized: kids or the older folks? This legislation is trying to protect the former at the expense of the latter (by taking away an effective smoking cessation tool). Clearly, this does not make sense in San Francisco -- a city that more or less does not have kids at all.

tdeck 7y ago
It's also worth noting that the unpopularity of cigarettes preceded the rise of vaping by several years. So it felt like the problem was finally being solved for a while.
- refurb 7y ago
  The biggest issue with cigarettes was the cancer risk. Vaping is much lower risk (if any) for cancer. So even if people just swap smoking for vaping, a HUGE problem was solved.

whalesalad 7y ago

SF is completely fucked from a priorities standpoint. Really glad I no longer live anywhere near there.

dehrmann 7y ago
But banning the sale of e-cigarettes--in the city where smoking weed is more socially acceptable than cigarettes--is easy. Building housing and improving transit is hard and can cost you votes next election.

drawkbox 7y ago

I don't entirely understand the attacks on e-cigs and vaping. 1) e-cigs/vaping is safer with less carcinogens going into lungs. That will lead to less health issues down the line. Even if kids are getting them, which they shouldn't because it is sold in an age limited regulated market, it is still safer than cigarettes and a regulated market with good production is always safer than an unregulated black market. 2) vaping/e-cigs don't combust, so there is no fire, which almost cuts out the threat of a fire starting completely unless a battery explodes which is very rare. A burning cigarette falling will continue to burn by design every single time. 3) e-cigs/vaping leave no butts, no trash and are mostly devices people want to keep and reuse. Reusability and no pollution are what e-cigs/vaping bring. Cigarette butts are the single greatest source of ocean pollution [1], and next to gum, all over all the time. Prohibitions and illegality of substances a certain percentage of people will always use, make these areas more dangerous in use/production and make harm reduction much more difficult. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigarette-butts-are-single-greatest-source-ocean-n903661 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plastic-straw-ban-cigar...

ceejayoz 7y ago
It's quite simple. Not smoking at all > vaping > cigarettes. Massive progress has been made in getting kids not to take up smoking. If you're a smoker, switching to vaping is a good thing. If you're not, it's a bad thing.
- refurb 7y ago
  This reminds me of the right wing stance on sex education. Abstinence > safe sex > unsafe sex Yes, the first is desirable, but let’s be serious, it’s not a reasonable goal for most people.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    That's a silly comparison. Smoking's been in a very successful decades-long decline due to public policy interventions. "Not smoking" is an entirely reasonable goal for most people.