4 ms·

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.

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.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      We need to ban all steaks! Why? Because my baby keeps finding steaks and choking on them! Shouldn't you just...take responsibility for your baby and keep it away from steak? Plenty of people eat steaks and they're fine. No! You don't get it because you don't have kids. Edit: Seriously though, I do understand, and if I were a parent I too would probably try to deflect my responsibilities onto the rest of society. Parenting is hard, and it's much easier to try to control the whole world than to control the little people you're personally responsible for. It's an easy impulse to indulge, and history is full of examples of this. I don't blame you.
      - eweise 7y ago
        There's just so much wrong in your response its hard to even respond. I suggest you save your post and someday if and when your kid is in high school, re-read it. You will have a good laugh.
Simulacra 7y ago
“...how on earth would big tobacco profit off of the loss of this young man. I would hate to think on such callous terms, but if anything, we would be losing a customer. It is not only our hope, but in our best interest to keep Robin alive and smoking.” - thank you for smoking
baby 7y ago
Also. There are almost no kids in SF. There are more dogs than children. True fact. San Francisco is bending backward on a lot of issues. Homelessness, scooters, airbnb, housing, weed and now vaping. I will never understand what the officials are smoking here.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  They can't solve the hard problems, so they look for crowd pleasers and throw money at them. They aren't throwing money at this one, obviously.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Not Juul, evidently.
- ivankirigin 7y ago
  Under 18 population: Chicago - 23% New York - 21% San Francisco - 13% https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children...
  - wahern 7y ago
    The children-dogs statement is true, though: https://www.kqed.org/news/11669269/are-there-really-more-dogs-than-children-in-s-f https://www.kqed.org/news/11669269/are-there-really-more-dog... But as someone with two kids living in San Francisco I think it's actually a great city for kids. The city spends extravagantly on parks, libraries, and youth programs.[1] The homeless and drug addict situations are very problematic, but mostly concentrated outside the neighborhoods (rich and poor) where families are more common. That said, there are quite alot of kids in the Tenderloin, where homelessness and drug use are endemic, than one would think. [1] The City of SF has a $12 billion budget, greater than that of ~14 states judging by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
eridius 7y ago
Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction alternative then it would be fine. But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing, getting kids hooked on nicotine that would have otherwise never touched a cigarette. Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware that people don't like their smoke and they make some effort to keep it out of people's faces, but vaping isn't smoking, it's vaping, and cool and less harmful than cigarettes, so who could possibly object to vape smoke filling the air? /s
- driverdan 7y ago
  You'd prefer tobacco smoke to vaping?? That's what the result of this will be. Let's assume what you say is correct, that they're marketing it for kids. The correct action isn't to ban it, it's to ban the marketing.
  - eridius 7y ago
    According to the actual ordinance itself¹, according to a 2018 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, there's moderate evidence that e-cigarette use actually increases the frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking in the future. Also, SF did in fact ban flavored tobacco products last year, but it seems that wasn't sufficient to combat the rise in e-cigarette usage among SF high school students. In any case, it seems the ordinance doesn't actually ban e-cigarettes. It bans e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval, which is required by law for any new tobacco product. So basically, the city is saying the FDA isn't doing their job, and so the product that shouldn't be allowed to be sold in general without this approval is now banned in SF until it receives this approval. 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...
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. Great, ban all advertising of nicotine products. I'd be fine with banning soft drink ads while we're at it. However, what does this to for public health when the harm reduction option is removed and literally the most harmful option available is for sale by the very system that SF doesn't trust to keep its products away from children?
Noos 7y ago
This is the medical marijuana issue, where the harm reduction is being overshadowed by the recreational use. The thing is, cigarettes were heavily frowned upon, so new users weren't really doing them. Vaping isn't, and it seems to be catching on well beyond the need for weaning off cigarettes. So now you have a new issue.

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.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    We need to ban all steaks! Why? Because my baby keeps finding steaks and choking on them! Shouldn't you just...take responsibility for your baby and keep it away from steak? Plenty of people eat steaks and they're fine. No! You don't get it because you don't have kids. Edit: Seriously though, I do understand, and if I were a parent I too would probably try to deflect my responsibilities onto the rest of society. Parenting is hard, and it's much easier to try to control the whole world than to control the little people you're personally responsible for. It's an easy impulse to indulge, and history is full of examples of this. I don't blame you.
    - eweise 7y ago
      There's just so much wrong in your response its hard to even respond. I suggest you save your post and someday if and when your kid is in high school, re-read it. You will have a good laugh.

Simulacra 7y ago

“...how on earth would big tobacco profit off of the loss of this young man. I would hate to think on such callous terms, but if anything, we would be losing a customer. It is not only our hope, but in our best interest to keep Robin alive and smoking.” - thank you for smoking

baby 7y ago

Also. There are almost no kids in SF. There are more dogs than children. True fact. San Francisco is bending backward on a lot of issues. Homelessness, scooters, airbnb, housing, weed and now vaping. I will never understand what the officials are smoking here.

WalterSear 7y ago
They can't solve the hard problems, so they look for crowd pleasers and throw money at them. They aren't throwing money at this one, obviously.
remarkEon 7y ago
Not Juul, evidently.
ivankirigin 7y ago
Under 18 population: Chicago - 23% New York - 21% San Francisco - 13% https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children...
- wahern 7y ago
  The children-dogs statement is true, though: https://www.kqed.org/news/11669269/are-there-really-more-dogs-than-children-in-s-f https://www.kqed.org/news/11669269/are-there-really-more-dog... But as someone with two kids living in San Francisco I think it's actually a great city for kids. The city spends extravagantly on parks, libraries, and youth programs.[1] The homeless and drug addict situations are very problematic, but mostly concentrated outside the neighborhoods (rich and poor) where families are more common. That said, there are quite alot of kids in the Tenderloin, where homelessness and drug use are endemic, than one would think. [1] The City of SF has a $12 billion budget, greater than that of ~14 states judging by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

eridius 7y ago

Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction alternative then it would be fine. But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing, getting kids hooked on nicotine that would have otherwise never touched a cigarette. Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware that people don't like their smoke and they make some effort to keep it out of people's faces, but vaping isn't smoking, it's vaping, and cool and less harmful than cigarettes, so who could possibly object to vape smoke filling the air? /s

driverdan 7y ago
You'd prefer tobacco smoke to vaping?? That's what the result of this will be. Let's assume what you say is correct, that they're marketing it for kids. The correct action isn't to ban it, it's to ban the marketing.
- eridius 7y ago
  According to the actual ordinance itself¹, according to a 2018 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, there's moderate evidence that e-cigarette use actually increases the frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking in the future. Also, SF did in fact ban flavored tobacco products last year, but it seems that wasn't sufficient to combat the rise in e-cigarette usage among SF high school students. In any case, it seems the ordinance doesn't actually ban e-cigarettes. It bans e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval, which is required by law for any new tobacco product. So basically, the city is saying the FDA isn't doing their job, and so the product that shouldn't be allowed to be sold in general without this approval is now banned in SF until it receives this approval. 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...
mullingitover 7y ago
> Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. Great, ban all advertising of nicotine products. I'd be fine with banning soft drink ads while we're at it. However, what does this to for public health when the harm reduction option is removed and literally the most harmful option available is for sale by the very system that SF doesn't trust to keep its products away from children?

Noos 7y ago

This is the medical marijuana issue, where the harm reduction is being overshadowed by the recreational use. The thing is, cigarettes were heavily frowned upon, so new users weren't really doing them. Vaping isn't, and it seems to be catching on well beyond the need for weaning off cigarettes. So now you have a new issue.