4 ms·

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 a

by 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.
  - tjohns 7y ago
    While I agree the cancer risk is probably lower... I don't think we really know what the true cancer risk is for vaping yet, let alone the risk for other cardiovascular diseases like COPD and popcorn lung. This product hasn't existed for very long, so long term studies just don't exist yet. That said, there is some research that suggest caution is at least still warranted: https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-e-cigarettes-on-lung.html https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-e-...
100100010001 7y ago
I do live I the Bay Area and I know more people 21-25 who smoke cigarettes than vape. See... anecdotal evidence is easy to find a counterpoint to.
- tjohns 7y ago
  You got me curious, so started digging up sone actual data. Here's some interesting public polls (Gallup): https://news.gallup.com/poll/237818/young-people-adopt-vaping-smoking-rate-plummets.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/237818/young-people-adopt-vapin... According to their data, in the 18-29 demographic, 20% vape compared to 16% using traditional cigarettes. And some analysis from the academic side: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/10/31/tobaccocontrol-2018-054446 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/10/31/toba... "There was a substantial increase in youth vaping prevalence beginning in about 2014. Time trend analyses showed that the decline in past 30-day smoking prevalence accelerated by two to four times after 2014. Indicators of more established smoking rates, including the proportion of daily smokers among past 30-day smokers, also decreased more rapidly as vaping became more prevalent... The inverse relationship between vaping and smoking was robust across different data sets for both youth and young adults and for current and more established smoking. While trying electronic cigarettes may causally increase smoking among some youth, the aggregate effect at the population level appears to be negligible given the reduction in smoking initiation during the period of vaping’s ascendance." So, it seems to be mixed. Certainly more younger folks vaping than using cigarettes, though it's roughly 55%/45%... and this might not have a strong impact on overall smoking rates. (I'm actually surprised. I expected to see more vape use based on my own anecdotal observations!)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
unethical_ban 7y ago
Or what must also be considered: Personal choice in doing something irresponsible. Alcohol is clearly a mental and physical destructive force when abused, and is probably worse for you than nicotine addiction. E-Cigarettes are bad, but not nearly so as cigarettes. This is just truly absurd. For some reason I thought maybe it meant the use of vapes indoors or something similar, but the entire sale? Fucking overbearing politicians. This kind of hypocritical action makes progressives look bad.
ryanobjc 7y ago
13.4% of San Francisco is under 18 years of age. And over 65s are 15.7%. It’s entirely reasonable to take regulatory steps to protect younger persons. Habits ingrained now last a lifetime - that’s why Juul is fighting this - a new generation of consumers is at risk of not having access to their product. Other cities and states are watching this play out. By the way, just because you don’t see a lot of kids where you hang out, believe me there are tons of kids here. I have one. We live in San Francisco. There is a robust parent community here. You may not see it if you aren’t looking for it. For example, did you know there’s a large playground at ... mission Dolores park? And if you and your childless friends decided it was a fun place to play, you will get asked to leave. Possibly by the police.
- nilkn 7y ago
  I sense some unnecessary aggression in your post. Either way, 13.4% is pretty low. One would expect a rate about double that, if not a bit more.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by nilkn 7y ago

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.
- tjohns 7y ago
  While I agree the cancer risk is probably lower... I don't think we really know what the true cancer risk is for vaping yet, let alone the risk for other cardiovascular diseases like COPD and popcorn lung. This product hasn't existed for very long, so long term studies just don't exist yet. That said, there is some research that suggest caution is at least still warranted: https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-e-cigarettes-on-lung.html https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-e-...

100100010001 7y ago

I do live I the Bay Area and I know more people 21-25 who smoke cigarettes than vape. See... anecdotal evidence is easy to find a counterpoint to.

tjohns 7y ago
You got me curious, so started digging up sone actual data. Here's some interesting public polls (Gallup): https://news.gallup.com/poll/237818/young-people-adopt-vaping-smoking-rate-plummets.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/237818/young-people-adopt-vapin... According to their data, in the 18-29 demographic, 20% vape compared to 16% using traditional cigarettes. And some analysis from the academic side: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/10/31/tobaccocontrol-2018-054446 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/10/31/toba... "There was a substantial increase in youth vaping prevalence beginning in about 2014. Time trend analyses showed that the decline in past 30-day smoking prevalence accelerated by two to four times after 2014. Indicators of more established smoking rates, including the proportion of daily smokers among past 30-day smokers, also decreased more rapidly as vaping became more prevalent... The inverse relationship between vaping and smoking was robust across different data sets for both youth and young adults and for current and more established smoking. While trying electronic cigarettes may causally increase smoking among some youth, the aggregate effect at the population level appears to be negligible given the reduction in smoking initiation during the period of vaping’s ascendance." So, it seems to be mixed. Certainly more younger folks vaping than using cigarettes, though it's roughly 55%/45%... and this might not have a strong impact on overall smoking rates. (I'm actually surprised. I expected to see more vape use based on my own anecdotal observations!)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

unethical_ban 7y ago

Or what must also be considered: Personal choice in doing something irresponsible. Alcohol is clearly a mental and physical destructive force when abused, and is probably worse for you than nicotine addiction. E-Cigarettes are bad, but not nearly so as cigarettes. This is just truly absurd. For some reason I thought maybe it meant the use of vapes indoors or something similar, but the entire sale? Fucking overbearing politicians. This kind of hypocritical action makes progressives look bad.

ryanobjc 7y ago

13.4% of San Francisco is under 18 years of age. And over 65s are 15.7%. It’s entirely reasonable to take regulatory steps to protect younger persons. Habits ingrained now last a lifetime - that’s why Juul is fighting this - a new generation of consumers is at risk of not having access to their product. Other cities and states are watching this play out. By the way, just because you don’t see a lot of kids where you hang out, believe me there are tons of kids here. I have one. We live in San Francisco. There is a robust parent community here. You may not see it if you aren’t looking for it. For example, did you know there’s a large playground at ... mission Dolores park? And if you and your childless friends decided it was a fun place to play, you will get asked to leave. Possibly by the police.

nilkn 7y ago
I sense some unnecessary aggression in your post. Either way, 13.4% is pretty low. One would expect a rate about double that, if not a bit more.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]