5 ms·

Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction alter

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?
objectivetruth 7y ago
>But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing Can you name any examples of this marketing for a curious reader? After the "blu" e-cigarette commercials were kicked offline several years ago, the only marketing I've seen for e-cigarettes are point-of-sale ads in gas stations or tobacco shops.
asdff 7y ago
Where is it being marketed? I've never noticed a Juul ad before.
- eridius 7y ago
  Some time ago the MUNI stations in SF were absolutely plastered with these ads.

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?

objectivetruth 7y ago

>But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new thing Can you name any examples of this marketing for a curious reader? After the "blu" e-cigarette commercials were kicked offline several years ago, the only marketing I've seen for e-cigarettes are point-of-sale ads in gas stations or tobacco shops.

asdff 7y ago

Where is it being marketed? I've never noticed a Juul ad before.

eridius 7y ago
Some time ago the MUNI stations in SF were absolutely plastered with these ads.