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-va

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).