6 ms·
Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like San Francisco. I have a friend who's 80 year old grandmother was addicted to cig
by 013a 7y ago
Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like San Francisco.
I have a friend who's 80 year old grandmother was addicted to cigarettes. He wanted to buy her an ecigarette for christmas to help her quit, even though he subtly felt like it may be for naught given her age and how long she had been addicted. I suggested a Juul just because of how easy it is to operate and the high nicotine content, given its targeted toward people trying to quit.
A few months ago he showed me a picture of her "empty pod drawer". She didn't want to throw out the pods because she was hoping there was a way to recycle them. There were probably a hundred. She doesn't smoke anymore.
Maybe, in the worldview of the officials, no one would consume nicotine. That isn't the world we live in; in the world we live in, these city officials are simply indirectly responsible for the premature deaths of thousands of people. Moreover, I don't even know if that's a world we should be idealizing, in the same way I don't know if a world without alcohol or caffeine or tylenol would be more ideal than the one we have. Just to start thinking about it: nicotine is a nootropic, and recreation is definitely great for your productivity and wellbeing. There aren't zero positives to the chemical.
Its mostly just sad to see addiction so continually demonized in our society. We want to point blame, and then push it out of our minds like it doesn't exist. And in the case of these city officials; literally push it out of their city. I can only hope that, one day, the people who run that very strange city start the process of learning to treat other people with the love and care we all deserve.
- jasonhansel 7y agoWe shouldn't penalize addiction. But we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit.
- m0zg 7y ago>> should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit You just sighed a death warrant to HN, and 95% of all corporations that make a profit.
- bdamm 7y agoAgreed; Facebook, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Lays, Twitter, CNN, Fox, Disney, and Purdue are all examples of companies that are taking advantage of people's reward path in a basically addictive way. Maybe 95% in terms of aggregate profit.
- m0zg 7y agoWhy not Google? There are a lot of kids (including my son) addicted to YouTube. Why not Amazon? There are a lot people addicted to buying stuff they don't need.
- krtkush 7y agoAdd reddit to it too, IMO.
- bdamm 7y agoThe list is definitely far from comprehensive. Thanks for adding. I think we could add many more especially if you include companies that boost their profits by taking advantage of people by presenting them with a dilemma of immediacy, such as Home Depot and their overpriced key rings, or movie theaters that disallow outside food and make all their money on popcorn and soda.
- EvanWinget 7y agoThis is definitely true for a lot of the major consumer facing software companies. "Sean Parker, the 38-year-old founding president of Facebook, recently admitted that the social network was founded not to unite us, but to distract us. “The thought process was: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’” he said at an event in Philadelphia in November. To achieve this goal, Facebook’s architects exploited a “vulnerability in human psychology”, explained Parker, who resigned from the company in 2005. Whenever someone likes or comments on a post or photograph, he said, “we… give you a little dopamine hit”. Facebook is an empire of empires, then, built upon a molecule." Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopam...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- stunt 7y ago> we absolutely should penalize corporations who take advantage of addicts for a profit Often we end up doing things to make sure they have more profit. I wouldn't be surprised if this e-cigarettes ban is coming from cigarette manufacturers lobbying for it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- conanbatt 7y agoIn the world of the officials, Juul pays them generously to run "addiction relief programs" that run into the 100's of millions every year.
- 013a 7y agoFor the oh-so-dangerous drug called Nicotine. I've first-hand seen the effects this Killer Drug has on the poor people caught in its grasp. One time, we were at dinner, and my friend stepped outside for five minutes for a vape. I've seen lost souls on so much nicotine, their focus is heightened significantly and they get this almost imperceptible shake in their hands, someone not even looking for it might not notice it but it must be devastating for them. Have you ever been so wasted drunk, then used nicotine to level out and pivot back toward functionality? I haven't, thank the lord. All of this, and these poor people are also forced into paying Big Juul dozens of dollars a month. I mean, a Juul pod costs about $3, imagine if a coffee from Starbucks or a soda were to cost that much!
- ezoe 7y agoWhen one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the violation of other's right. I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my right. If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action must be forbidden for protecting the other's right. So, in this case, the right to smoke shall be allowed in the condition in which my right of no inhaling it shall be honored. Now, if you don't have a level 3 biohazard facility, you shall not be allowed to smoke. My right is constantly violated almost everyday.
- 013a 7y agoYou do not have a right to not inhale someone else's smoke. Let's be very clear about the language you're just throwing around like it doesn't mean anything, because the Rights recognized by the Constitution aren't just something that have no meaning. That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke. Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted"; they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind of thing (our fore-fathers did).
- FrozenSynapse 7y agoTheir actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.
- FrozenSynapse 7y agoI cannot stand ecigarette smell, it makes me throw up, it's way worse than a normal cigarette. Anyway, I don't smoke and I don't understand why should I endure cigarette smoke on the street.
- benwad 7y agoIf you live in SF (or any major city), your health problems from breathing someone else's smoke outside is negligible compared to the damage done by car emissions.
- TravHatesMe 7y agoIs second-hand smoke from ecigs equally harmful as real cigs? If that is not the case, then your comment sounds like you are entitled to fresh air everywhere you go -- which is not fair and seemingly self-centered.
- ionised 7y agoSame reason I as an asthmatic have to endure your vehicle smog causing me breathing difficulties. Personal freedoms.
- eridius 7y agoI'm glad to hear e-cigarettes helped your friend's grandmother! Unfortunately there's not very much actual evidence yet that e-cigarettes help people quit smoking, and according to the actual ordinance under discussion, there's some evidence that it can actually increase smoking. > And while there is some evidence that the use of e-cigarettes by adults may support smoking cessation under certain circumstances, a 2018 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report concluded that there was moderate evidence that e-cigarette use in fact increases the frequency and intensity of cigarette smoking in the future.
- decebalus1 7y agoIt's interesting that studies from across the pond show otherwise, with the NHS endorsing e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation device.