4 ms·

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...
Simulacra 7y ago
Big tobacco has been suffering sales drops because of vaping. This will make smoking cigarettes cool again
idunno246 7y ago
It's a ban on non-FDA approved products. They need to get approved by 2022 anyway, and presumably can apply earlier. At worst its a two year ban. It doesn't seem awful to say the product needs to go through the same evaluations that cigarettes have already gone through
komali2 7y ago
Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be stopped. https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-releases/2018/12/teens-using-vaping-devices-in-record-numbers https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-releases/2018/12/... >Reported use of vaping nicotine specifically in the 30 days prior to the survey nearly doubled among high school seniors from 11 percent in 2017 to 20.9 percent in 2018. More than 1 in 10 eighth graders (10.9 percent) say they vaped nicotine in the past year, and use is up significantly in virtually all vaping measures among eighth, 10th and 12th graders. It's already illegal for kids to buy them, but it's trivial for them to just get'm anyway when the shops are already selling them. This will mean that kids will have to leave the city to get it, or get it on the black market. That will reduce usage, and send a message to other cities that it's a tenable proposition (somebody had to be the first to ban it). There are valid issues. The typical anti-prohibition ones that crop up are "criminal black market uprising" i.e. the mob in Chicago during alcohol prohibition. I'm not sure this is as valid as vape usage isn't as prevalent as alcohol, nor is it as integral a part of our culture. Worth watching, though. Another issue is the apparent hypocrisy - for some reason, cigarettes can still be sold in the city, besides being decidedly more disgusting, environmentally unfriendly, and unhealthy. On the one hand, they got this vape ban through quick, so it might finally allow the banning of tobacco products as a whole to come through as well. On the other hand, why target vapes before cigarettes? I have no idea. In any case, the goal is to get kids to stop smoking. Doing one part of that (banning juuls) isn't the entire battle, and shouldn't be treated as such. There's the devil's advocate argument. I personally believe that a better solution is no prohibition, but massive tax to ensure the proper cost is being levied on these products - i.e., for cigarettes, purchasers need to offset their decision by providing the State with the funds to cover the environmental, public health, and public image impact of the cigarettes. Similar to the carbon tax argument. Furthermore, government resources being levied on educational outreach to ensure that the public is aware of the genuine detriments to these kinds of products. Finally (this is already implemented), ensuring companies like Marlboro aren't allowed to make false claims regarding the unhealthiness of their products, even hinting as such through imagery (i.e. showing an ad of a doctor smoking or something).
- scarface74 7y ago
  Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be stopped. Because banning substances has worked so well in the past - see weed.
WalterSear 7y ago
It's been adopted massively by teenagers. That said, this is 100% showboating for the 'family friendly' schmoe vote. There is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent online purchases.
- olleromam91 7y ago
  Legislation states bans on shipping to San Francisco addresses.
  - WalterSear 7y ago
    I know. It's unenforceable.

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...

Simulacra 7y ago

Big tobacco has been suffering sales drops because of vaping. This will make smoking cigarettes cool again

idunno246 7y ago

It's a ban on non-FDA approved products. They need to get approved by 2022 anyway, and presumably can apply earlier. At worst its a two year ban. It doesn't seem awful to say the product needs to go through the same evaluations that cigarettes have already gone through

komali2 7y ago

Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be stopped. https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-releases/2018/12/teens-using-vaping-devices-in-record-numbers https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-releases/2018/12/... >Reported use of vaping nicotine specifically in the 30 days prior to the survey nearly doubled among high school seniors from 11 percent in 2017 to 20.9 percent in 2018. More than 1 in 10 eighth graders (10.9 percent) say they vaped nicotine in the past year, and use is up significantly in virtually all vaping measures among eighth, 10th and 12th graders. It's already illegal for kids to buy them, but it's trivial for them to just get'm anyway when the shops are already selling them. This will mean that kids will have to leave the city to get it, or get it on the black market. That will reduce usage, and send a message to other cities that it's a tenable proposition (somebody had to be the first to ban it). There are valid issues. The typical anti-prohibition ones that crop up are "criminal black market uprising" i.e. the mob in Chicago during alcohol prohibition. I'm not sure this is as valid as vape usage isn't as prevalent as alcohol, nor is it as integral a part of our culture. Worth watching, though. Another issue is the apparent hypocrisy - for some reason, cigarettes can still be sold in the city, besides being decidedly more disgusting, environmentally unfriendly, and unhealthy. On the one hand, they got this vape ban through quick, so it might finally allow the banning of tobacco products as a whole to come through as well. On the other hand, why target vapes before cigarettes? I have no idea. In any case, the goal is to get kids to stop smoking. Doing one part of that (banning juuls) isn't the entire battle, and shouldn't be treated as such. There's the devil's advocate argument. I personally believe that a better solution is no prohibition, but massive tax to ensure the proper cost is being levied on these products - i.e., for cigarettes, purchasers need to offset their decision by providing the State with the funds to cover the environmental, public health, and public image impact of the cigarettes. Similar to the carbon tax argument. Furthermore, government resources being levied on educational outreach to ensure that the public is aware of the genuine detriments to these kinds of products. Finally (this is already implemented), ensuring companies like Marlboro aren't allowed to make false claims regarding the unhealthiness of their products, even hinting as such through imagery (i.e. showing an ad of a doctor smoking or something).

scarface74 7y ago
Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be stopped. Because banning substances has worked so well in the past - see weed.

WalterSear 7y ago

It's been adopted massively by teenagers. That said, this is 100% showboating for the 'family friendly' schmoe vote. There is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent online purchases.

olleromam91 7y ago
Legislation states bans on shipping to San Francisco addresses.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  I know. It's unenforceable.