Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Moves To Ban E-Cigarettes Until Health Effects Known (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Officials in San Francisco have proposed a new law to ban e-cigarette sales until their health effects are evaluated by the U.S. government. The law appears to be the first of its kind in the U.S. and seeks to curb a rising usage by young people. Critics, however, say it will make it harder for people to kick addiction. A second city law would bar making, selling or distributing tobacco on city property and is aimed at an e-cigarette firm renting on Pier 70. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its proposed guidelines, giving companies until 2021 to apply to have their e-cigarette products evaluated. A deadline had initially been set for August 2018, but the agency later said more preparation time was needed. San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera, one of the co-authors of the bill, which is yet to be approved, said reviews should have been done before they were sold. Juul, one of the most popular U.S. e-cigarette firms, rents space on Pier 70. It said in a statement: "This proposed legislation begs the question -- why would the city be comfortable with combustible cigarettes being on shelves when we know they kill more than 480,000 Americans per year?"
So...have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government? Does anyone else find it interesting that the cities and states that are the most friendly to legalized pot also seem to be the most hostile to cigarettes (and e-cigs now)? I'm pretty sure that intentionally sucking the smoke from burned plants of any kind isn't very good for you. The libertarian in me doesn't give a crap about either. One might come to the conclusion that they are OK legalizing things that they personally like, and have no problem curtailing the rights of any that they disagree with or simply dislike.
I find it funny that they want to make e-cigarettes illegal when they do fuck all about the homeless problem and the much more hardcore, already illegal drugs that they're using.
I don't smoke at all, but my 24-year-old son did, until e-cigarettes became popular.
First, no tar. And no stench.
I'd a lot rather he puff on those candy things than the old-fashioned smoky ones.
Would it be better if he didn't do any of them? Yes. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the e-cigs any day.
How does that make sense?
Ban it first, test it later. Now THAT is typical California politics.
Lots of emotion over e-cigarets, not many facts. Look around the web and you find groups who say they are necessary and others that say they are deadly--but where are their facts? Are hospitals filled with vapers? Are they dropping dead in the streets? Are they robbing banks to pay for their habit? Are children vaping in hopes of becoming smokers some day?
It seems that it is mostly the morality police that are determined to crush this product without bothering to find evidence to support their campaign.
Nowhere in this chaos do I see any mention of the benefits of nicotine. Benefits? It's a well-kept secret. Many smart people take a choline supplement (very much like nicotine) that makes them, well, smarter. Nicotine can do that and more but the morality police don't want you to know about that.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Maybe installing some public toilets would ameliorate the situation?
Do you know all the "health effects" of these things? Should we believe they're harmless because the same companies who lobbied for decades saying tobacco was harmless are telling us these things are harmless too?
Fool you once, shame on them.
Fool you twice...?
No sig today...
I think this is mostly right. From the 1970s on, the anti-smoking industry only grew in political influence and overall resources. I bet in the beginning they saw this as a never-ending battle. When they largely "won" with the tobacco settlements, it was like suddenly gaining access to a perpetual annuity -- limitless funding combined with political and moral authority.
The problem is, changes in smoking laws actually reduced smoking. A lot. Around here, smoking was limited early on (mid-70s) and in the late 90s/early 2000s got even more restrictive to the point where you couldn't really smoke in any public place (no bars, restaurants, etc), and many hotels, apartments, etc., followed suit. The people who didn't quit outright (still smoked in their homes or cars) certainly cut their consumption and a lot of people just kind of gave it up when there was nowhere but outside (and even that was restricted).
At this point, I think a lot of people were starting to question the resources and authority given to non-smoking and it presented an existential risk to organizations whose reason for being was going up in smoke. The introduction of vaping was a gift from heaven to the anti-smoking industry. A new lease on life. An activity that was so similar to smoking that they could easily conflate it in the minds of the public and trade on unknown risks as equivalent to known risks. Most people think they're the same thing, and there are educated adults who can't be convinced that vaping isn't smoking even when presented with the basic facts.
What's so ironic about this is the success of marijuana legalizaiton at the same time. While its possible to consume it without smoking, it's very much a smoking-centered activity and the arguments for not banning vaping are *at least* as compelling as the arguments for legalizing marijuana (if you're for legalizing marijuana because prohibition doesn't work).
It's come down to what the basic reality of what anti-smoking is -- a form of *moral advocacy*. It's about smoking being unhealthy but it's also about opposing a pleasure-inducing activity that has no moral justification. Anti-smoking forces going after vaping are either just gaming to keep their revenue and influence going, or they're pursuing a morality goal that's only shrouded in health concerns.