Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like San Francisco.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
I'll never understand why lawmakers think that fruit and other flavorings for tobacco are aimed at getting kids hooked. It's almost like they think no adult has ever enjoyed fruit or candy, and that making teens smoke plain cigarettes will keep them from being rebellious.<p>I've tried almost every variation of ecigarette mod out there except mechanical mods, because I'm not an idiot enough to know I'm too much of an idiot to use one safely. Nicotine salt (the type used in juul and smok nord, among others) are the best- balance of nicotine from the sub-ohm types without the obscene amount of vapor pouring into your lungs, and the filter doesn't constantly clog / burn like the older, smaller pen and marker varieties.<p>Does it suck that also makes them perfect for teens to hide their addiction? Sure. Then again, there's also a market starting to boom for tobacco-free nicotine pouches, using tea leaves or other filler. It's also way, way cheaper to get the liquid for vaping online than it is in stores anyway.<p>This ban, at the scope of the city, won't help teens, and it's only going to hurt the people living there. For better or worse, drugs like caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and THC are here to stay.
This is perverse given that tobacco cigarettes are still widely available. I can't remember the last time I was actually satisfied with a decision from the Board of Supervisors.
I hate cigarettes, I hate the litter, the smell, and the smokers' belief that they have the divine right to pollute my airspace. I also hate the taxes I spend on keeping them in hospital - but. E cigarettes don't cause litter, the smoke is far less offensive. If people are going to smoke they will smoke. SF would be far better off banning actual cigarettes.
Convinced part of the problem with political offices is that elected politicians have no incentive to actually consider second order or third order effects of any piece of legislation they pass. Everything is optimized for first order effects only e.g. optics because that is what they think "shows" they did something.
So I dug up the actual ordinance itself¹ and it turns out to not be a "ban all e-cigarettes" ordinance. It is in fact "ban e-cigarettes that have not received FDA premarket approval". Which is to say, if the FDA actually does their job and approves the damn things, then they can be sold in SF again.<p>¹<a href="https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3912E3-BB56-420D-896E-6FEA1391287D" rel="nofollow">https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...</a>
All prohibition is asinine but this has to take the cake.<p>Even if there is no way to prevent more kids from getting addicted to vaping (and that's a big if), having less kids and many less adults smoking cigarettes is such a huge win for public health.<p>--<p>Anecdotally I went from 2 packs a day to chain vaping for a few years, health improved enough to start being much more active, finally weaned down nicotine, quitting vaping was hard but not near as yard as other cigarette quits, have been nicotine free for almost a year (not even a puff) and now I avg about 10+ miles a week running and 50+ miles a week biking and am in the best shape of my life at almost-40.
Instead of writing short rages or immediately drawing party lines, those who enjoy consuming nicotine might benefit from writing openly and honestly about the fact that they enjoy these products. Perhaps mention the fact that current research leans in the direction that secondhand vapor is less harmful than secondhand smoke [1] and so vaping could be treated as more of an individual freedom.<p>Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape, though I believe there should be incredibly strong regulations against companies benefiting from the sale of addictive chemicals. The interesting conversation to me is how to protect children and inform the public while not compromising liberties that don't <i>need</i> to be compromised.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparison-of-the-effects-of-e-cigarette-vapor-and-McAuley-Hopke/531a2a28e64e69b62070daf161992f94de9636e1" rel="nofollow">https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparison-of-the-effe...</a><p>From the abstract: "For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes."
Let's work through the logic here:<p>San Francisco assumes that the existing controls on the purchase of tobacco products by minors are a failure. They must act.<p>San Francisco's reaction to this is to ban all tobacco products from the city, for the children. This is perfectly rational.<p>But wait, no, their reaction is to ban the <i>harm reduction option</i> and keep the worst tobacco product known to be the most addictive and the most harmful to health on store shelves, where they believe they can't keep it from being purchased by minors.<p>The headline should read, "San Fransisco insists that minors switch to cigarettes." That's the only rational conclusion any sane person could draw from this.
I f<i></i><i></i><i></i> hate SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing. Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago (which gets tons of snow): do nothing. Horrendous traffic? Do nothing.<p>But: Vaping! Freak out! NIMBY! Move fast!<p>Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.
Wow. Ban the way that so many have people quit their tobacco addictions with. Just enforce the existing no smoking laws. I get it’s annoying when people vape wherever but as someone who used to to quit then eventually quit vaping, we’re taking an extremely valuable tool away from people who would like to quit.
From the article: ``illegal . . . for online retailers to ship the goods to San Francisco addresses."<p>Does anyone know how the government of SF would enforce that on an online retailer not based in SF? Tell them they've been fined, then sue them in state court if they don't pay?
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?
Some background:<p>The specific ordinance (#190312) that passed is covered on this page: <a href="https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574&GUID=BABC44F3-8798-49AF-A75D-A27561A77B0D" rel="nofollow">https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574...</a><p>That page links to this video of the discussion last week on the measure (no video yet from today's meeting): <a href="http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=10&meta_id=727356" rel="nofollow">http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=1...</a><p>The ordinance just passed the Board of Supervisors and will need to be signed by Mayor London Breed to go into effect.<p>There are no minutes from today's Board of Supervisors meeting posted yet, but you can see from last week's minutes that the ordinance has support from all 11 members of the board: <a href="https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf</a><p>If you want to comment on this legislation, I think the best way at this point is to contact London Breed's office by calling (415) 554-6141 or emailing MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org. Again, the mayor has to sign the legislation before it becomes law.
This just screams of a moral panic that's no different from when Congress held hearings about how violent music lyrics or violent video games were corrupting the youth.
Pretty ironic given the same day Juul buys[1] 123 Mission for approx 400 million dollars.<p>[1]: <a href="https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-soma-tower/" rel="nofollow">https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-som...</a>
I can’t help but question if this is really how the forefathers intended the land of the free to solve difficult problems by simply banning them. All this hope for a better future is making a worse present with no real proof that will even payoff.
Perhaps the ban should have been targeted at ways to decrease the litter and pollution that comes from disposable vaporizer products. Other commenter have pointed out how Juul pods are treated as disposable and can end up as litter on the sidewalk like cigarettes. However, there are refillable pod systems that would cut down on behavior like that.<p>A side effect of requiring refillable pods may be an increased initial cost for the device and a bottle of juice, but at the moment there are refillable systems that are cheaper (and lower quality) than Juul.<p>As far as the waste from batteries and the risk of devices not being disposed of properly, my personal device actually recommends contacting the manufacturer or a shop that sells the product to perform a proper battery replacement. The old battery is then disposed of safely.<p>Vaping in a way that affects other people is always wrong, but until there is a push for society to call out the users who vape in improper places, legislation will not fix the issue. I would like to see more efforts to educate current or potential users about the risks of vaping and also the risks of misusing their devices. The current culture of vaping cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect the health issues that can from from it, as the vaping community seems to always fight back against any possible health risks.
Does anyone have a link to the text of the actual legislation? The article paints this as a general ban on sale/distribution/manufacture, but elsewhere narrows it to "on city property", so I'm curious about what the legislation actually says.<p>Regardless, it's asinine that San Francisco would ban e-cigarettes and not <i>actual</i> cigarettes. It's also pointless; nothing stopping people from heading to Oakland or Daly City (or further) for their vape pens/juice.
Almost 2 years ago I saw a comment on HN from a guy who quit smoking after reading Alan Carr's "The Easy Way". As a person who was heavily addicted, often smoking more than a pack a day, struggling to quit for good, I decided to read the book. It did wonders - for almost 2 years I haven't smoked and I don't miss it. It also helped friends to whom I recommended the book. I wanted to drop a comment here in case I can inspire others to give it a try.
They want to ban a safer alternative to cigarettes for people addicted to nicotine?<p>Are they trying to make the health consequences of their existing drug abuse problems even worse?
I have never smoked cigarettes, and I have a severe reaction to the smoke from them, when merely walking behind people on the sidewalk. I have never had a single, negative reaction to vape smoke. My nose doesn't even detect it.<p>Also, I hate it when cigarette smokers throw butts on the ground or in the gutter. I've had yelling matches with people on the street over it.<p>I understand the issues with vaping, but seriously, this is just insane.
Seems like politicians just trying to win public favor by taking broad swings at a hot topic, rather than trying something that would actually protect the youth, or anyone for that matter.
How has history not convinced these people that prohibition is ineffective and a waste of public funds?
So this sounds super ridiculous:<p>1) so vaping pot is ok? Vs nicotine<p>2) the largest fucking evape co (JUUL) is hq in sf<p>3) JUUL is investing heavily into vape tech and cannabis<p>4) have you ever been to any place in SF without smokers<p>5) SF has the highest number of michelin starred resta of any city on the planet - which means that you have a bunch of stressed out industry ppl who are going to smoke cigs/vape cigs<p>—<p>Also, who the heck is “passing” this bullshit. They should have a /r/ for “stupid things sf wants to do”<p>I dont smoke cigs or vape or even smoke cannabis!!! Yet i build cannabis tech. But get your nimby ass out of here and stop acting progressive.<p>Progressive is to force the tech companies to provide data and services to help you manage city sentiment.<p>Because youre failing at being progressive.
I do not understand why this thread is so against this legislation.<p>Issues with e-cigarettes:<p>1) they bypass laws regarding cigarette advertising: compare e-cig packaging with cigarette packaging; this is problematic, especially for youth (the non-users most likely to be vulnerable to advertising for such products)<p>2) contrary to what is portrayed, they are <i>not</i> interested in helping people quit tobacco usage: tobacco companies have a large stake in this business<p>3) e-cigs minimize the danger of tobacco, by making the "delivery mechanism" seem most problematic, and thus "solvable"<p>4) there are other methods to deal with cigarette addiction (nicotine addiction, in particular): they just aren't as sexy<p>As for the law itself, it sets a historic precedent (if it truly bans e-cigs outright, rather than just on city property/public spaces): tobacco products can no longer skirt flat out prohibition.<p>I find it ridiculous that:<p>1) Juul's spokesperson cites "thriving black market" creation as a problematic side effect of this law: the point of prohibition is not to stamp out usage entirely (as history has shown this is not feasible), but to make it more difficult than usual to obtain said prohibited product. Its all about probability. Furthermore, when it comes to habits, even small barriers to existing habits can go a long way in changing them (and conversely, removing small barriers to new habits can go a long way in promoting them).<p>2) Commenters claim that e-cig users can just go to other jurisdictions, making this law "pointless": again, its about introducing barriers.<p>The law is far from a perfect solution, and I doubt it was intended to be, but it's just a small step in the right direction.<p>Finally, I think substance abuse problems fundamentally come from a lack of satisfaction/connection with the world around us. There are a billion and one ways to handle this issue, and I think normalizing substance usage only works as a barrier to usage (e.g. Netherlands: remove the "sex factor" due to "prohibition") when the substance has already been commonplace for years. E-cigs are new enough that prohibition can send strong signals to people who might be considering getting into it, especially because as a society we have successfully built quite a lot of "energy" behind the idea that tobacco usage in general is fairly harmful/not sexy (c.f. the situation with alcohol, where it remains synonymous with "socializing").
I swear officer, I'm high. This is all weed! /s<p>I can understand wanting to control access to something that kids are getting into, but it feels like we're repeating some mistakes here.
Haha, I wonder how much of an effect this is going to have. Most SF kids know how to take BART down to Daly City and everyone knows enforcement of using a vape is not going to happen. Like you could always smoke weed on the streets of SF. It was defacto legal for years.<p>It’ll be interesting to see if taking BART/muni down to Daly City will be a problem.
The moral panic regarding tobacco and nicotine is well past its expiration date.<p>Yes, the prevalence of smoking was a problem; yes, it's social acceptability in places people had to be (workplaces for example) impacted the health of people who didn't want it; and yes, some people still get addicted with sad consequences.<p>BUT, at some point you have to let people have their freedom to choose and not stop people using nicotine products who understand the risks and don't have dependence issues.<p>Vaping tobacco products is excellent for quitting because the nicotine delivered is less effective. There is not <i>less</i> of it, it has diminished desirable effects.<p>MAOIs are drugs which inhibit a kind of enzyme in the brain and among other effects have strong drug interactions increasing the potency of many psychoactive drugs.<p>Cigarette smoke either contains or has similar effects to MAOIs the effect which is significantly more addictive [1] nicotine.<p>1. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026</a>
"Cigarettes and other tobacco products will remain legal in the city, along with recreational marijuana."<p>But e-cigs are banned?<p>That's messed up. If you're going to protect people's health (at the expense of some freedom) be consistent about it.
Meanwhile you can buy vape cartridges of weed at any dispensary in SF. What makes no sense is SF is going to wait for the FDA to study ecig health effects while at the same time the FDA has made its position pretty clear on weed.
I got the best online platform where anyone can find marijuana products easily.
<a href="https://greenlandshop.site/" rel="nofollow">https://greenlandshop.site/</a>
The homeless in SF use cigs, not e-cigs. It would've therefore been productive to actually ban the sale of cigs instead so as to drive out the homeless, but why would one expect an ounce of unbiased logic from politicians?
So, like in Chicago with the gun-stores, you'll have vape stores open up just outside the city limits. It's not illegal to vape, just to sell vaping products or ship vaping products to SF addresses.
Ban e-cigarettes, but get pot smoke blown in your face on every other street corner.<p>I don't know why I keep expecting consistency in my public policy but I am once again thoroughly disappointed.
There is a bit of a contradiction in banning e-cigarettes "for the good of the children" while legalising cannabis, which is known to have adverse effects on teenagers.
Vaping is epidemic in US middle schools and high schools. Restrooms are filled with vaping smoke and causing lot of problems for others. Schools are not doing anything about it.
I have yet to read or hear any reason that vaping nicotine is harmful, beyond addiction potential.<p>Which imo is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco. I don't understand the hysteria.
All of the issues Californians face and this is all they can accomplish? Another ban? The largest economy in the US and this is it? What a shithole. Literally.
Good.<p>I got a recruiting email from Juul a couple of weeks ago : "Help power the movement to end cigarette-related deaths!"<p>That's bullshit. From all the stats I have seen so far (and to be fair, since I don't smoke, it is not a subject I follow very closely), e-cigarettes are on track to negate all the progress made on young smokers.<p>A good proportion of the teens that start vaping and go on to start smoking cigarettes would not have started smoking without juul.<p>And before somebody starts claiming that Juul has zero responsability there, Juul is also paying social influencer directly targetting teens.
The real reason this ban is good is because e-cigarettes cause lots of plastic (cartridge) and battery pollution. Regular cigarettes believe it or not are not as bad for the environment (even the filters break down after a while).<p>I don’t think this health issue really matters because if someone is addicted to smoking regular cigarettes that only affects them. Pollution from e-cigarettes on the other hand is bad for everyone, even the non-smokers.
This has to be political, as singling out vaping while allowing alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, AND requesting tax dollars for "safe spaces" for drug injection, make zero common sense.<p>Let this be a lesson - politicians will greenlight you as long as you fill their coffers
Sigh... with all the real and urgent problems the city (homelessness, housing shortage, vehicle break-ins, etc.) has they somehow have time to enact garbage laws.<p>We need new blood in our city government.
"After Donald Trump took office the next year, the agency said it would push back until 2022 a requirement that vape companies submit applications to continue selling their products. Once a product has FDA approval, the legislation would allow its sale in San Francisco again."<p>The city supes want e-cigs regulated by the FDA before they are sold, just like regular cigarettes are.<p>Just because FDA approval is not mandatory until 2022 does not mean that Juul can't submit an application for FDA approval now, if it wants to sell in SF.
At first I was against it, then I heard a rant from the local cornerstore about how e-ciggs were one of his best sellers and he was pissed and I realized it was probably a net good since it was both rabidly popular and really unhealthy. Sure, it's ironic cigarettes are still legal, but that doesn't mean we should stop passing marginally good laws.
Crazy. Good for them. It's like we forget about big tobacco. From a health/social point of view I'm glad they coming out ahead of everyone else. Curious how it will play out in the end, and if the Mayor intends on signing it.