San Francisco Moves To Ban E-Cigarettes Until Health Effects Known (bbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

San Francisco Moves To Ban E-Cigarettes Until Health Effects Known (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @03:30PM from the up-in-the-air dept.

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?"

228 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:34 · Score: -1, Troll

It is afraid of losing its immoral excess in candy flavored profit margins.
1. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by aergern · 2019-03-20 16:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them? No? I thought so. Your argument is weak and so is theirs.
  
  --
  Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
2. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:26 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  THERE IS NO vapor, only JUUL
  
  lololololol I just inhaled WAY too much nitrogen containing comupoundzzzz an my nailbedzzz turnin a blue lolololool
3. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:37 · Score: -1
  
  My penis, your butt, here we gooooooooooo
4. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:42 · Score: -1
  
  FULL DEFRAG WITH FILE REORDER
5. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:07 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Anti-smoking groups, who saw $Billions of expected sin tax revenues evaporate in a scented cloud of steam when cigarette smokers converted to vapes. are the real pushers here.
  So what are these prohibitionists pushing now? Deprive adults of a massively safer way to consume nicotine... for the sake of the children.
  And here you are claiming that only "children" like flavored vape juice when adults are the primary market.
  I want to protect children, just like you, so limiting minors from purchasing them would seem to be a much more rational approach than throwing around blanket bans, like you should with smoked tobacco which is the primary source of many diseases here in America.
  But, let's get back to your astro-turfy hyperbole, because it's for the children.
6. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and non vaginal sex, including masterbation, should all be illegal. God doesn't want you heathen libtards ruining his plan.
  #MAGA
7. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-20 18:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
  Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol, and there are scientific studies connecting e-cig availability to higher nicotine addiction among young people. No such connection has been shown between addiction and candy flavored booze. So they are not comparable.
8. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Part of the psychological kick of being a leftist is enjoying the imagined applause as you regurgitate the memetic talking points, and believing them, the way Picard was to believe there were 5 lights.
  You have to believe vaping is worse than smoking because the truth ads lie to you, prompted by the tobacco lobby that is using regulation to drive vaping to be costly, so only their giant corporations can afford to adhere to it.
9. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Sri+Ramkrishna · 2019-03-20 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
10. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  Sweet Jesus, repent you sinner! Vaginal sex for *PLEASURE*?? Not in MY Puritan State! Procreation, not recreation!
11. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Joce640k · 2019-03-20 19:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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...
12. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 20:09 · Score: 0
  
  Funny... Never seen anyone get the DT's from lack of nicotine...
13. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by helpfulcorn · 2019-03-20 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Except in California evidently. I mean I haven't looked it up, but I presume then that in Colorado, Washington, et al there's basically no interest in tobacco products at all anymore? Or is it that it must become legal nationally in order for that magical moment to happen? I guess tobacco consumers in those states where marijuana is legal are just protesting for federal legalisation.
14. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by stealth_finger · 2019-03-20 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
  Well, you still need cigs to roll your joints.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
15. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by dnaumov · 2019-03-20 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you want to ruin you joint by adding tobacco?
16. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by dcw3 · 2019-03-20 22:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Some moron said
  
  Deprive adults of a massively safer way to consume nicotine.
  Hardly "massively safer"...
  https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/first...
  From the CDC:
  E-cigarettes have the potential to benefit adult smokers who are not pregnant if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products.
  E-cigarettes are not safe for youth, young adults, pregnant women, or adults who do not currently use tobacco products.
  While e-cigarettes have the potential to benefit some people and harm others, scientists still have a lot to learn about whether e-cigarettes are effective for quitting smoking.
  If you’ve never smoked or used other tobacco products or e-cigarettes, don’t start.
  Additional research can help understand long-term health effects.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
17. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by MrKaos · 2019-03-20 22:55 · Score: 2
  
  Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
  Well, you still need cigs to roll your joints.
  You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes. Additionally you can cook the vape products into food, making THC/CBD more effective. Great for painkillers, much better than opiates. I had an Achilles tendon surgery and the doctor suggested this was a better option than from liver failure from too many other types of pain killers. Same with spinal surgery recovery.
  As for nicotine a legitimate reason for ingesting it is to relieve schizophrenia symptoms. Vaping seem to be the safest method however my only concern is that when glycol isn't heated properly it produces compounds like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde instead of carbon dioxide and water. Maybe this just means making sure the battery is properly charged before using the device.
  I wonder how much nicotine consumption is driven by an unconscious desire to relieve schizophrenic symptoms?
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
18. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-20 23:00 · Score: 2
  
  California already has the 2nd lowest rate of tobacco smoking, behind only Utah.
  Colorado and Washington are well below average.
  West Virginia and Kentucky are the worst.
  Cigarette smoking by state
19. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by tinkerton · 2019-03-20 23:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I was quite surprised that I couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful. The harm in addiction could be little more than economical. I always assumed that a large component of what makes smoking cigarettes directly harmful was the nicotine.
  Of course if the nicotine keeps you inhaling all the other combustion chemicals then that makes it quite harmful in an indirect manner.
  I was even more surprised to find that there is a good argument to say the same about heroin :https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences
20. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Highdude702 · 2019-03-20 23:14 · Score: 2
  
  Thats apparently a UK/Europe thing and apparently they do it in Canada also. One of the guys that works for me told me he mixes tobacco with his weed.. Which I thought was crazy. And when I was younger I knew some people from the UK that did the same.
21. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by LostMyAccount · 2019-03-20 23:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
22. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Megane · 2019-03-20 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  They don't fuck up my throat like secondhand smoke from a real cig does. That's what I care about the most.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
23. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 23:51 · Score: -1
  
  You can't trust those numbers. The sample size for California was only 8717 people out of over 40 million.
24. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by dcw3 · 2019-03-21 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's great, and I hope it works out for you, but doesn't make them massively safer.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
25. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by dwillden · 2019-03-21 00:31 · Score: 2
  
  While Nicotine maybe addictive. Unless they are taking extremely high doses it has no other negative effects. So if it keeps them from trying Tobacco products then I'm all for letting teens vape. When they wise up they can work their selves off the Nicotine by moving to progressively lower concentration juices until they aren't getting any nicotine.
  
  This is a bad move. Vaping has helped many long time smokers finally escape tobacco. And many have eventually weaned their self off the nicotine as well.
  
  I wonder how much vaping is cutting into SF's tobacco Sin Tax Revenues?
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
26. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  There's another solution to this: don't ask a fucking Englishman how to roll a joint..
27. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes.
  While the vast majority of potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke are caused by the hundreds of fucked-up additives, the "tar" from burning weed has been shown to have beneficial properties. Perhaps it's not best administered through the lungs... but there's still no comparison.
28. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  I always assumed that a large component of what makes smoking cigarettes directly harmful was the nicotine.
  The nicotine is bad; the additives are far worse.
29. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by helpfulcorn · 2019-03-21 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  So marijuana must be legal in Utah then? My point being it's likely some other cause such as California having anti-smoking laws for far longer than many other places and also a huge tobacco tax. If tobacco were on the same playing field as what is in Kentucky, I can't imagine California would be 2nd lowest.
30. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:29 · Score: -1
  
  Shut up retard
31. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a Canadian and I hate it when people put tobacco in their weed. I see it all the time. That shit has to stop.
32. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by astrofurter · 2019-03-21 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  If most users report significantly decreased negative health effects, then yes that does make them safer. I'll leave discussion of the threshold for 'massively' to someone else.
33. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by greythax · 2019-03-21 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  30 seconds of googling revealed this. To save you the reading,
  
  Several lines of evidence indicate that nicotine may contribute to the development of cancer. Evidence from experimental in vitro studies on cell cultures, in vivo studies on rodents as well as studies on humans inclusive of epidemiological studies indicate that nicotine itself, independent of other tobacco constituents, may stimulate a number of effects of importance in cancer development (5, 6).
  BTW, I was a smoker for 20 years and loved every second of it. If I thought for a minute that any form of nicotine wasn't terrible for my health, I would be on it again in a heartbeat.
34. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  I was quite surprised that I couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful. The harm in addiction could be little more than economical. I always assumed that a large component of what makes smoking cigarettes directly harmful was the nicotine.
  I don't remember which one it was, but there is some disease that is actually best treated with nicotine (which surprised me). Someone in the Slashdot forums wrote about getting the diagnosis and then being informed by the doctor that smoking actually treated it. He started smoking and the symptoms went away. As he said, it was better to smoke than to have the symptoms of the disease. I'm very glad that the rise in e-cigs may have given him the best treatment to his disease without the long term damage.
35. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by tinkerton · 2019-03-21 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  I did mean 'significantly'. Lots of things have unhealthy effects depending on dosage and we find our way through them. Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer and it plays a large role in heart disease. If nicotine by itself is 20 times less dangerous then that still means something but it doesn't stand out in the crowd anymore and then you have to be really health conscious to start avoiding it (like me I guess). My assumption was that the burning products of tobacco caused lung cancer and the nicotine destroyed the veins. But that was wrong.
36. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Nicotine also has cognitive enhancement and neuroprotective benefits as well as a few other benefits that you failed to leave off.
  Remind me again what beneficial effects alcohol has?
37. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by bluefoxlucid · 2019-03-21 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Glycerin and propylene glycol are irritants. They're bigger irritants than tobacco smoke.
  They're also well-known low-toxicity. They don't cause the damage that smoke causes. These compounds can absorb through the lungs into the blood without producing cytotoxicity in the doses consumed.
  PG is actually less-toxic than VG, but VG is less-irritating. VG is natural, and PG is an organic compound.
  I think the health effects are pretty well expected to be less-damaging than the health effects of huffing charred plant aerosol.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
38. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  Stanton Glantz, Phd? If you are going to this vigilante, then I will post what the American Council on Science and Health has to say about Glantz:
  What?!?! Dr. Glantz believes that it's better for vapers to smoke cigarettes instead? If smokers actually follow his advice, they will die. Period. So, it's completely fair to ask, "What is he smoking?"
  Even more bizarre than his statement -- which is objectively untrue, given that the UK's NHS has declared vaping to be 95% safer than smoking cigarettes -- is the fact that the paper he cites to justify his belief concludes the exact opposite of what he said. Here is an excerpt of the paper's conclusion:
  "Exclusive use of e-cigarettes appears to result in measurable exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants, generally at lower levels than cigarette smoking. Toxicant exposure is greatest among dual users..."
  In other words, people who smoke and vape are exposed to the highest levels of toxicants, but people who only vape are exposed to lower levels of toxicants. That's common sense, and it's precisely the opposite of what Dr. Glantz tweeted.
  https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/12/28/stanton-glantz-says-vapers-should-smoke-cigarettes-instead-13690
39. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-21 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Gee whiz mister, any chance you're using an e-cig right now or vaping? Thought so.
  Effects of alcohol: KNOWN. Also, requires ID to show you're >=21 years of age to purchase.
  Effects of E-cigarrettes: NOT CURRENTLY KNOWN. Also, you only need to be 18 -- and 18 year olds are even dumber than 21 year olds.
  There, was that so hard to understand?
  Also: There's already been studies showing that e-cigs and vaping serve as easy 'gateways' to smoking tobacco.
  Maybe you'd get those panties of yours out of the bunch you've got them in and focus on your own personal problems instead?
40. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by skids · 2019-03-21 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  There is still a lot we don't know. Like what's coming off the wicks when they inevitably overheat due to most of the devices being built very cheaply/disposable.
  That said, there is zero reason to ban these things. The odds off them being worse than combustion are very low.
  Research could lead to less harmful products.
  We definitely need the research done. It's fine to warn against using vapes and educate the public, but we don't need bans in the meantime.
  It's sad to see the abstinence-only-anti-tobacco lobby making things worse. But it's been like that for decades now... they dissemble so much in their ads they spoil any trust they might have initially had with their target audience.
  (BTW as a smoker I had no problem with the ad with the tiny "bully" guy in tan pants and a white wifebeater... I laughed and liked that ad. One of the only ads that didn't make me get out of my chair to go have a puff. But everything by "the Truth" campaign endangers the longevity of my TV if there are throwable abjects nearby because all their ads are deceptive.)
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
41. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  >I was quite surprised that I couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful.
  You must royally suck at internet searches. Try "nicotine toxicity", or "nicotine hypertension", or "nicotine kidney disease", or "nicotine vascular diseases", or "popcorn lung", or "nicotine brain degeneration" for starters. That's not even counting the negative effects associated with taking addictive substances.
42. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by tinkerton · 2019-03-21 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Show me a result of impact of isolated nicotine which is anywhere near the effect of smoking
43. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-21 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
  Yes.
  
  Oh, you were talking about marketing and targeting minors. Never mind then.
44. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  >Show me a result of impact of isolated nicotine which is anywhere near the effect of smoking
  Hey, just leave the goalposts where they are.
  You stated you were surprised you couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful. 1 minute of searching proves your statement is bullshit.
45. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  Gateways to smoking tobacco LOL.
  More propaganda.
  Let me guess u have a cig hanging out your mouth right now?
46. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by ilsaloving · 2019-03-21 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  The key point is right there: "if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products."
  Nobody is saying that they are completely safe. Or if they do, they're lying. From everything I've read, they *are* substantially safer than cigarettes.
  That in no way says that if you don't currently smoke, you now have the green light to start. If someone IS saying that, they should be appropriately charged with false advertising.
47. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Only Eastern Canada. We know how to smoke in the West.
48. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by dcw3 · 2019-03-21 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  A doubled risk of heart attacks (see link I provided) would argue that they aren't "massively safer", and there's plenty more study to be accomplished.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
49. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by tinkerton · 2019-03-21 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is bullshit. I am trying to distinguish nicotine from smoking. All the proof of health hazard which I found were done by testing with smoke. That is entirely sensible by itself in a time when nicotine is inhaled as smoke. But it also means there aren't necessarily any serious tests for health effects of nicotine without the smoke . And that was what I was searching for, and you aren't. Search results for damaging effect of nicotine will generally yield the results for smoking.
  This doesn't mean nicotine by itself poses no health hazard. Strictly speaking it only means there is a lack of testdata. My deduction was that nicotine by itself is an order of magnitude less dangerous than smoking. Here is an article providing an overview:
  http://cancerpreventionresearc... .
50. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  ''' u '''
  GTFO faggot. Go back to reddit.
51. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by LostMyAccount · 2019-03-21 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  You can tell when you've burned a wick in about a second, it tastes awful. But under normal vaping conditions, the wick doesn't ever reach a temperature where it *can* burn. You have to run your vape dry to get it to burn.
  As near as I can tell, the days of cheap, easy-to-burn vapes are mostly over. Most everyone has moved onto very-low/sub-ohm atomizers that are literally in a vape juice bath that keep the wick saturated and won't allow it to burn. The coils are stainless steel, and the wick is cotton.
  Just like with all the other drugs, the moralizers are only making the problem worse by trying to ban it or run it underground. Unless they make nicotine a schedule I controlled substance, vaping will continue except people who want to vape will be using home-brew e-liquids where they add their own nicotine and blend in god knows what flavorizers, many of which could potentially be actually unhealthy (and not just "we're uncertain" unhealthy).
  It would be SO MUCH more helpful if they would just stick to regulating it so that all vape juices sold had to meet strict lab quality tests and use ingredients generally recognized as safe. But making vaping safer isn't what they're after, they don't want anyone consuming any nicotine at all, and it's not a health concern, it's morality.
52. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by markdavis · 2019-03-21 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  >"Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol"
  So? Even if the flavoring IS attractive to minors, it probably doesn't matter- Have you seen the statistics of how many people alcohol kills- both users AND innocents? It makes no difference if you remove everything else from an alcoholic drink, as long as it has alcohol, those statistics will stay the same- alcoholism, impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, drunk driving, fights, accidents, alcohol poisoning, drug interactions, etc.
  I suspect nicotine, itself, would be ZERO, if it is just nicotine (not cigarettes). And even with flavorings and such, it is probably still close to zero with vaping. As a public policy, it is insane to target nicotine while ignoring alcohol. It is already illegal for minors to buy, anywhere. Anything further than that will do FAR MORE HARM to society as a whole.
  Don't get me wrong, I think performing safety research on vaping is a very good thing. But banning or regulating the sale or adult use of the product without any evidence of significant harm is just foolish (flavored or not)... especially when there is apparently already a lot of evidence of its safety, and even more especially when the alternative for those users is something known to create great harm to the user (cigarettes), and really annoy non-users in the process.
53. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-21 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  The sample size for California was only 8717 people out of over 40 million.
  That sample size is plenty big enough. The sample size needed for statistical significance is independent of the population size.
54. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Stanton A Glantz, author of your link, is a hack who is in it for the grant money and has made a career with the anti-smoking schtick. He just switched it up to anti-vaporizers when he realized that is where the money is.
  Here is a link that goes into great detail about what a hack Glantz is
  Can you explain to me why both the US NIH and UK NHS have both stated that vaping is 95% safer than smoking cigarettes?
55. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by betsuin · 2019-03-21 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  > Thats apparently a UK/Europe thing and apparently they do it in Canada also.
  
  Yeah, people do that here in Australia as well, makes me wanna puke!
56. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by betsuin · 2019-03-21 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  > I was quite surprised that I couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful.
  
  You gotta be kidding me! Ever heard of LD50? That's Leathal Dose 50%, which means 50% of test subjects die.
  
  Good ol' Wikipedia quote:
  0.5–1.0 mg/kg can be a lethal dosage for adult humans, and 0.1 mg/kg for children.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or http://www.inchem.org/document...
57. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by MrKaos · 2019-03-21 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes.
  While the vast majority of potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke are caused by the hundreds of fucked-up additives,
  Indeed.
  
  the "tar" from burning weed has been shown to have beneficial properties. Perhaps it's not best administered through the lungs... but there's still no comparison.
  I've heard that it opens up the bronchial tubes. I was a nurse that told me they see a lot of throat cancer patients who used to smoke weed. That was the main reason I went vape, to remove the biggest concern.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
58. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by tinkerton · 2019-03-21 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  How is this relevant for figuring out the health effects of getting your nicotine fix without inhaling burned tobacco?
59. Re: Juul is a pusher to children by Highdude702 · 2019-03-21 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's insanity. I couldn't even imagine man. At least you got your head on strait lol. My canadian buddy said he does it to stretch it out? Idk how that works, and I was young when I knew the english couple and didn't think to ask. They would still smoke strait weed with the rest of us so I guess its just a cultural thing.
60. Re:Juul is a pusher to children by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-22 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  If you want a list of nicotine effects in different research paper, search on Google Scholar and you should see plenty of papers there.
Oh for fucks sake, no. by rsilvergun · 2019-03-20 15:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

Repeat after me kiddies: Legal, Taxed and Regulated.

Also, is this just the old school tobacco lobby at work? I know SF is full of some dumb wannabe lefties (the sort that are all about Gay Marriage and not so much about anything that might result in their taxes going up like a living wage or affordable housing), but this is a bit much. It stinks of general corruption.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Darinbob · 2019-03-20 16:02 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  There's a lot of dumb people who think vaping is just a safe way to smoke, and so they are smoking indoors in public buildings, indoors at work, on a train, etc. I told one guy at work to stop inside since it could get him fired and he told me to keep it quiet because some others were already mad at him, so he goes around trying to vape secretly even though the smell is atrocious and irritating to people with asthma.
  Screw up your own life but don't screw up other people's.
2. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by alvinrod · 2019-03-20 16:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  Vaping is a SAFER way to smoke, you ignorant hick. It's undoubtedly better than the old way.
4. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:30 · Score: -1
  
  Because Liberals with political power think it's their mission in life to make everyone equally miserable.
5. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:46 · Score: 0
  
  4.5 million needles/year given out to SF's drug addicts to prevent spread of aids.
  There were 221 new cases of reported HIV infections in 2017, lowest yet. But, most HIV infections don't occur from needles shared between HIV infected drug users, but from unprotected sex with HIV infected partners. It makes no sense. The number of OD's by drug users using those free needles has got to outweigh the scant number of HIV infections prevented from needle sharing. And what happens to all those needles? They litter the streets where there is a danger getting stepped on, or they get thrown away and hauled out to sea in garbage boats to be dumped in the ocean. But SF is worried about the health effects of e-cigarettes?
6. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by ChromeAeonuim · 2019-03-20 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  is this just the old school tobacco lobby at work?
  Hard to tell if it's that, or just some real morons. Are e-cigarettes safe? Probably not, but we know full well that cigarettes aren't safe by any definition. So they want to ban something that, while probably harmful to some degree, is likely to be less harmful than the old style cigarettes? It's not uncommon for people to be more afraid of unknown potential risks than known proven dangers, but you'd hope for better from lawmakers.
  
  Either they didn't spend more than five seconds thinking this out (which would be unsurprising), or they're helping out some cronies in the traditional tobacco business with their competition (which would also be unsurprising). Hanlon's razor would claim they're just morons, but who really knows?
7. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 17:00 · Score: -1
  
  Either he vapes or he rapes you. Choose wisely!
8. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by fustakrakich · 2019-03-20 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  Vaping is a SAFER way to smoke
  Liar, liar, pants on fire!
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
9. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  Why are the moderators being such assholes?
10. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by phantomfive · 2019-03-20 18:12 · Score: 2
  
  That's not really true, SF has been doing a lot with the homeless recently. If you walk down Market street, or down the Mission, you'll see that the number of homeless people has dropped.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
11. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Old school tobacco lobby at work - correct - but I imagine tax revenue loss is also a factor.
  Well, if you don't know put a warning sticker all over and all over point of sale. Because every tobacco blend is different too.
  A sane person would say it cant be any WORSE than cigarettes, excluding the revenue and tax angles.
  So warnings, not a ban is the sensible solution.
  It will only to take a few months after a battery of rats and rabbits and primates forced to smoke nail the argument they are not more harmful. Gives a new meaning to monkey business.
12. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Excelcia · 2019-03-20 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Repeat after me kiddies: Legal, Taxed and Regulated.
  
  Better yet, how about just "legal"?
  I see no need to tax it beyond what any retail item is taxed. Or regulated beyond what the law already allows, in that if it turns out to have been harmful then the seller is liable civilly, and if it turns out to have been harmful and the seller knew (or used ingredients that the seller ought to have known) were harmful then they are liable criminally. Until then, caveat emptor.
  Almost all vape "juice" made in North America is already limited to nicotine and ingredients and flavourings that are on the FDA's Generally Recognized as Safe list and they limit the hardware to temperatures that those ingredients would already be exposed to during cooking. They do that for the very reason of liability. Pretty hard to argue that vape juice is harmful when it is nothing more than what you might get coming off a cake that's baking in your oven. So I'm not sure that the municipality of San Francisco would have a leg to stand on for most of it. Of course, if you're getting the cheap made in China stuff, well, you as a buyer deserve what you get when you buy stuff coming from a place where they use industrial waste in baby formula.
  As far as those arguing that vape makers are "pushing" it to children, well, when it's just flavourings and a mild stimulant, how is that different from Mountain Dew, or any of the billion fruity energy drinks?
13. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:22 · Score: -1
  
  I'm posting AC because I had to mod 2 posts TROLL. Your post isn't a troll, but I have no fucking clue how many people think vaping is a "safe way to smoke".
  I can only speak for myself. I vape and I think it's a horrible habit and I don't think it's safe. I suspect it's probably not quite as bad as outright smoking, but I'm still fucking addicted to nicotine (if I'm going AC, I may as well fucking tell you how I really feel) and I think it's STILL destroying my lungs and quite possibly giving me FUCKING CANCER.
  All the assholes who think this is a "lefty issue" and decry the legalization of marijuana need to wake up and smell the coffee^H^H^H^H^H^H^H stench of that strawberry vape you're sucking on.
  Then again, I "smoked" Eclipse Cigarettes for 10 fucking years and RJR Reynolds had the unmitigated audacity to claim that it was a "Safer Way To Smoke". Maybe it was "safer", but NOBODY thought it was "safe". Needless to say they shut down that advertising campaign after a couple of years. That was after I smoked Marlboros and Camels for 15 fucking years before that.
  And only an idiot thinks vaping is "safe". I've choked just as hard on e-cigs as I have from Camel unfiltereds.which we all smoked as lads because it made us look cool and tough....No, that wasn't it. It made us look stupid and weak! Why did we smoke? I have no idea, really.
  We were probably just trying to be cool and were susceptible to any chemical that gave us a momentary buzz, no matter how lame and addictive it was.
  And even here in the great state of Colorado, no city is forced to allow marijuana sales. Some still forbid it. What you're NOT allowed to do is smoke it in public or blow it in other people's faces and I cannot disagree with those laws.,
  And that's just fine with me. Now, I'm going to take another hit off my e-cig (GOD I HATE THAT FUCKING THING) and pack a big fat bowl with some marijuana that boasts a THC content of nearly 29%.
  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  Thank you, I think I will.
14. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  What homeless problem? Americans are free to live on the street if they choose. Or are you suggesting we criminalize and jail people for being poor/out at night?
  If you have a homeless problem, just kill them and they'll be removed by the city eventually as trash. Not like anyone is going to follow up and investigate much if you don't kill them all at once in an obvious way. Poisoning pizza and throwing it out where can easily be found works pretty well. Just act drunk when you buy the stuff you put on it, act like you taste it and then toss it. Perfect alibi.
15. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by religionofpeas · 2019-03-20 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty hard to argue that vape juice is harmful when it is nothing more than what you might get coming off a cake that's baking in your oven
  How many cakes do you bake in a given day, though ?
16. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Teun · 2019-03-20 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sad mods that think you are trolling.
  In many civilised countries vaping is under the same regulations as smoking and rightly so, it emits bad vapours and to kids makes it look like smoking is acceptable behaviour.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
17. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  That's not really true, SF has been doing a lot with the homeless recently. If you walk down Market street, or down the Mission, you'll see that the number of homeless people has dropped.
  Which is also why homeless people from accross the US tend to make their way to California
  
  A) You get treated better.
  B) You are less likely to freeze to death.
  C) You are less likely to be beaten to death by a bunch of thug cops or burned alive by skinheads.
18. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by dcw3 · 2019-03-20 22:39 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Nice wataboutism. Yes, they shouldn't make any other laws and drop everything until they've addressed those issues.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
19. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 22:47 · Score: 0
  
  Bakeries have been around for quite some time. They bake dozens of cakes on a given day. Are they all dropping like flies from exposure to heated propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine?
20. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Rockoon · 2019-03-21 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  We've all heard of Mad Bakers Disease....
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
21. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by dwillden · 2019-03-21 00:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It is safer, far safer. When you were smoking, any tobacco product you were not only getting your addictive but otherwise non-carcinogenic and non harmful (except in extreme doses) Nicotine, but you were getting all the poisons and proven carcinogens in the tar and tobacco smoke.
  
  Yes you may still be coughing as you vape, but you already did the damage with your years of smoking. What you aren't doing is continuing to add more tar and other tobacco residues to your lungs.
  
  You can discretely vape indoors. Don't use strongly flavored juices. I've never vaped or smoked but worked with those who do both. Smokers I can smell from 10 feet away even though they only smoke outside on their breaks. I've had a co-worker vaping in the cubical next to me and the only reason I knew he was doing it was because I saw him doing it. I never smelled it.
  
  Now that you've kicked the tobacco, start buying juices with slightly less nicotine. Get used to that level and then step down again. That co-worker in the cubical next to me. No longer vapes. Like you he smoked for years. He tried to stop a few times but never with any luck because of the nicotine addiction. But after switching to vaping he was able to start reducing his nicotine concentration and got it down to zero. After a few weeks of that, one day he realized he'd forgotten his e-cig. He'd never forgotten his cigs or e-cig before but then when he thought about it he realized he'd been using it less and less as he had no addiction to satisfy. He wasn't quite done then but shortly did put the e-cig away and hasn't needed it since.
  
  I've seen this time and again. And I'll say it time and again, I'd rather work surrounded by people actively vaping then near someone who reeks of his smokes from his last break two hours ago.
  
  Vaping might have some risk depending on what the juice is made of. But it is vastly safer and preferable to tobacco or weed.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
22. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by CrimsonAvenger · 2019-03-21 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Are e-cigarettes safe? Probably not
  And this conclusion is based on what, exactly?
  Is there any science at all that indicates they're unsafe? Or is it just that word "cigarette" that makes them unsafe?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
23. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know but I guess they must contain an awful lot of propylene glycol...
24. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Thats an arguement for banning lithium ion batteries asshole not vaping.
  Stupid fucking slashdotter.
25. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, it's Trump's fault. Real news says San Fransciso is full of Republicans.
26. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Moral busybodies will save us all! Think of the children!!
27. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Does SF provide nalaxone kits and PReP to the homeless? That would help with a lot of the other problems you described. I'm not sure what the details on SF's social programs are like, it's a long way from where I live.
28. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, they should do exactly that! Ever heard of triage? You determine whether something's critical, non-critical, or past the point of saving, then work on the most critical saveable ones first. Faffing about making laws to stop some douches from vaping can wait.
29. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Also, is this just the old school tobacco lobby at work?
  Nope, the old school tobacco lobby loves ecigs. And sells the crap out of them. Smoking in teens kept going down and down, and this is a way for them to seem "healthy" and recapture that market.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
30. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  What are bad vapors?
31. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Darinbob · 2019-03-21 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Foul smelling, potentially with toxins. Not as bad as with raw smoke, but there's still at least nicotine. Common sense says vape outside and not indoors by your coworkers or family. If you vape because you're trying to stop smoking, then it should be familiar to not get your nicotine hit inside. If you vape because you think it's cool, then you need to learn that it just makes you look like a hipster dork.
32. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Why are so many people defending e-Cigarettes? San Francisco has ton of problems, but stopping e-cig is trivial problem to solve with no little to no effort. Should SF solve homelessness and everything else, before it swiftly remove e-cig bane.
  You don't know or don't care to believe or know. Cigarettes and their abusers are dying off -- sales continuously dropping off year over year. e-Cigs are growing and growing fast --- not because people are switching from tobacco cigarettes, but *new* abusers --- teenagers know tobacco cigs are "cancer sticks," but they think cause it is "e" -- it is new and safe --- the smart cigarette. This is a lie.
  With swipe of pen, we can lose one more under estimated problem. And then have more cycles to worry about feces, and everything else. But good to see so many people on /. lobbying for Juul and its ilk.
33. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  but there's still at least nicotine
  Nope, not guaranteed. I made my own vape juice and eventually got down to zero nicotine before quitting altogether.
  ====================
  Ingredients:
  ====================
  Propylene Glycol
  Vegetable Glycerol
  Food-grade flavoring
34. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  These machines have the worst batteries, so fuck off!
35. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Should SF solve homelessness and everything else, before it swiftly remove e-cig bane.
  
  Whataboutism.
  
  With swipe of pen, we can lose one more under estimated problem
  
  I'm not convinced there is a *problem*
36. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Are e-cigarettes safe? Probably not
  And this conclusion is based on what, exactly?
  Is there any science at all that indicates they're unsafe? Or is it just that word "cigarette" that makes them unsafe?
  You're still inhaling smoke, which is never good for your lungs. Typical users are also still getting a dose of nicotine.
  
  As the parent poster said, though, e-cigarettes are still much less dangerous than regular cigarettes.
37. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  "Vaping might have some risk depending on what the juice is made of. But it is vastly safer and preferable to tobacco or weed." You don't know this, neither does anyone else at this point. The cheap batteries used in some e-cigarettes have been known to catch fire or explode. The problem is that most of them use USB connectors for charging, therefore people think its ok to charge them from a computer or USB AC adapter. If the battery does not have built in overcharge protection, it is not safe to charge it from anything but the charger that it came with.
  More seriously, no one but the companies that make the vaping fluids know what is in them, and no one one knows what the long term effects of vaping could be (aside from nicotine addiction). And vaping is NOT legal for those under 18. Under age vaping is a large and growing problem. JUUL markets vaping devices that look like a large flash drive...IE disguised vaping devices. Who needs a disguised vaping device? Kids, who are not legally allowed to vape, even if they use vaping fluids with no nicotine content.
  I can fully understand a ban until the health effects are know, and appropriate regulations are put in place as to what chemicals vaping liquids can contain, and to try to keep e-cigarettes and vaping supplies out of the hands of minors.
38. Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  You ARE not inhaling smoke when you vape. You are inhaling vapors which is entirely different from combustion smoke.
39. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Liar. I live there and it's worse than ever. The whole city is like a Venice Beach public restroom.
40. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  It's not "smoke" it's water vapor.
  I've been using e-cigs for over 7 years and feel a hell of a lot better than I did while using traditional cigarettes. I have seen studies on both sides, but most of the studies showing that e-cigs are harmful have been flawed.
  Studied have shown that ecigs are better at smoking cessation.
  https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/30/690066777/study-found-vaping-beat-traditional-smoking-cessation-options
  There is always a risk for anything new. Bad batteries (yup, they do explode if you don't care for them, I use 40A), long-term effects not really known (hell, doctors used to prescribe smoking). With the current science, I am happy with getting my nicotine with ecigs. I'm not a 'vaper' just to make clouds. I just like my nicotine and my choice to get it in a more healthy way
41. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  You are not in fact inhaling smoke when you use a vaporizer. You are getting atomized propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and god knows what in the flavoring though. I'd bet it is much safer than cigarettes without the flavoring and probably still is with most flavors. You are definitely getting nicotine which is an addictive substance and not so great for your cardiovascular system though.
42. Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  They Just moved them, they're still all over SOMA just in the back where you can't see them. It's not like SF is handing out homes and jobs to the homeless, jsut needles.
How will you kearn the health effects by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:36 · Score: 0

If no one is smoking it? Idiots!
1. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Raisey-raison · 2019-03-20 16:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It's typical leftie nonsense. They want to ban or regulate or tax everything. They don't want to solve problems like the chronic lack of housing. Or lower healthcare costs by expanding the supply of doctors. And they ignore science when it suits them too. E-cigarettes are less harmful that regular ones. Even more off - they are pro cannabis. And smoking cannabis does cause cancer. So who knows what they actually believe.
2. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:27 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  So who knows what they actually believe.
  They don't "believe" anything. They "feel".
3. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by hairyfeet · 2019-03-20 16:47 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Considering there actually is an online map now that tells you which SF streets are currently covered in human feces and they are having to spend half their street cleaning budget just to deal with all the shit and needles covering their sidewalks? Frankly I'd say whether someone puffing some blueberry ecig is gonna get cancer 20 years from now should be the LEAST of their worries.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
4. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Jack9 · 2019-03-20 16:49 · Score: 2
  
  > And smoking cannabis does cause cancer
  What studies are you basing that on? Yes, combustion increases cancer in everything from cooking meat to petrol, but talking about levels to singularly cause cancer...I haven't seen the evidence regarding cannabis. I don't use cannaboid anything, but I'm interested.
  
  --
  
  Often wrong but never in doubt.
  I am Jack9.
  Everyone knows me.
5. Re: How will you kearn the health effects by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's a new one. "lefties" want to restrict the supply of doctors? It is the republicans that cut educational and health programs. Or is your idea of restricting the supply of doctor mean you are juat mad that snake handling faith healers aren't allowed to get Medicare dollars?
6. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Teun · 2019-03-20 19:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nothing lefty in sight, the right is even more likely to go for low hanging fruit.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
7. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by mysidia · 2019-03-20 20:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Its most likely just cronyism --- that's part of why it might not seem to "make sense" - members of both Left and Right parties are cronies of (different) corporations. Some business(es) or special interests that are harmed by the e-cigs industry, are no doubt lobbying and/or pushing their bought and paid for politicians (Or friends/relatives in politics) for this sort of ban.
8. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-20 21:49 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Actually the left has been quite supportive of e-cigs and other mild drugs such as cannabis and alcohol. Obviously housing is a major issue for the left too, with solutions like rent controls and social house building being popular. Healthcare is another major issue that the left wants to socialize, you just happen to have a different supply/demand based solution.
  We can work together to find solutions to these problems if you are willing to understand the other side's position. There is a lot of misinformation about there I'm afraid.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Air-conditioned+cowh · 2019-03-20 23:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's typical leftie nonsense. They want to ban or regulate or tax everything. They don't want to solve problems like the chronic lack of housing. Or lower healthcare costs by expanding the supply of doctors. And they ignore science when it suits them too. E-cigarettes are less harmful that regular ones. Even more off - they are pro cannabis. And smoking cannabis does cause cancer. So who knows what they actually believe.
  Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything.
10. Re: How will you kearn the health effects by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  That was certainly true up until fairly recently but It's flipped: get the fucking Neocons and Fundies out of the Republican Party and you're left with a far more enlightened approach to ensuring personal freedom than the "Left" (i. e. "the other right").
11. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. It was led by the progressives and most Protestants on the left back then. The Catholics and Lutherans didn't want anything to do with Prohibition.
12. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-21 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Cost of telling retailers they can't sell e-cigs for the time being: essentially zero.
  Cost of dealing with a long-standing and ever-worsening homelessness problem that results in a literal public health crisis: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..$$$
13. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  This is not a left or right issue. Who is using e-Cigs? Not you. And not me. Teenagers are using e-cigs, and growing rapidly. Easier to get than weed or booze, and stealthier too. Quick, cheap high -- and no one knows.
  Don't confuse the issue. And now you can call me a think about the children. Think about dumb young adults growing a billion dollar industry that has no social merit and creates future health problems that are completely avoidable.
14. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Trailer+Trash · 2019-03-21 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything.
  Not a big historian, I see.
  https://www.visitthecapitol.go...
  "The movement grew in the Progressive Era..."
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
15. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-21 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  > And smoking cannabis does cause cancer
  What studies are you basing that on? Yes, combustion increases cancer in everything from cooking meat to petrol, but talking about levels to singularly cause cancer...I haven't seen the evidence regarding cannabis. I don't use cannaboid anything, but I'm interested.
  My semi-educated guess is that smoking marijuana increases cancer risk by about the same amount that smoking regular cigarettes does. The difference is that most marijuana users aren't smoking 10 full joints every day for a couple decades. And for people that smoke one regular cigarette per week, the increase in risk is probably too small to be measurable.
16. Re: How will you kearn the health effects by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Are we talking about cigs or vaping?
17. Re:How will you kearn the health effects by markdavis · 2019-03-21 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  >"Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything."
  Actually it is either or both. They just take different approaches. The "Left" wants to ban because they believe they (and the government) know better than the "masses" and should take away responsibility in the name of collective health. The "Right" wants to ban because of "morality".
  Ironically, Classic Liberals and Conservatives would both oppose banning personal consumption because they believe in personal freedom and responsibility.
  "Left" isn't necessarily Liberal. And "Right" isn't necessarily Conservative. It is a confusing world we live in now.
Start with defacation on the street by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:39 · Score: 0

Ban all the things, including plastic bags. Give the burgeoning homeless population no semi-sanitary way to dispose of feces. Enjoy raging third world diseases. California is so smart.
1. Re:Start with defacation on the street by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2019-03-20 18:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe installing some public toilets would ameliorate the situation?
What about traditional cigarettes first? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:39 · Score: 0

But yeah, lobbyists and such.
But Pot is fine by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
1. Re: But Pot is fine by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  So...have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government?
  Lots and lots and lots of bogus, paid-for "studies" intended to show how terribly bad it is... do those count??
2. Re:But Pot is fine by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government?
  Depends on what you mean by "fully". The current studies point to it being pretty safe unless you burn it and inhale the smoke. And, the natural study of "all these people who smoke a shitload of pot" seems to show it does not have teh same cancer risk as cigarettes.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
3. Re:But Pot is fine by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, extensively in the 50s and 60s. On "volunteers". It's well documented to cause paranoid schizophrenia. I think it's being legalized now to fuck up the population intentionally, since most people are stupid enough to try it.
Is there a list somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:49 · Score: -1

of things liberals still allow me to do? Do I need a liberal's permission to take a shit yet?
1. Re: Is there a list somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  Just shit in the streets, like the homeless do.
2. Re: Is there a list somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  That's Cultural Appropriating India though...
This is bad or good ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:51 · Score: -1

"... they kill more than 480,000 Americans per year..."
It should be the week who die...
1. Re:This is bad or good ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:25 · Score: 0
  
  let's start with those who can't tell week from weak
Subsidized drugging? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:52 · Score: 0

While at the same time they are subsidizing fresh needles for the more hardcore drug addicts.
https://stjamesinfirmary.org/wordpress/?page_id=731
All this while they are overwhelmed with the homeless. Maybe they don't want to add to the counts from those who vape? Nope.. more liberal nonsense. Nothing to see here... just move along.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/11/san-franciscos-homeless-encampments-expose-failure-liberal-utopia/
1. Re: Subsidized drugging? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, would you like your drug addicts to have HIV and HPC? While you might feel insulated from the concerns of the poor, theyâ(TM)re on the fringes of a biological network you live in called society and drug addiction causes unexpected connections across social strata.
2. Re: Subsidized drugging? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-03-20 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  So the deciding point is not a perfect situation, but rather a less sub-optimal one.
  Got it.
  Vaping should thus be legal.
  Hmmmm. Maybe it's all about the asinine memes that take hold in an us vs. them manner.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
3. Re: Subsidized drugging? by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  thus
  It's a stupid, insidious habit; doesn't mean it should be illegal - thus or no thus.
WARNIN: ANECDOTE (not data) by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:58 · Score: 0

I switched to a vaporizer after a decade of pack a week smoking, then gradually gave up maintenance on it... and quit. Just kinda happened.
1. Re:WARNIN: ANECDOTE (not data) by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  That's not a whole lot of smoking. 3 a day means that you are not feeding the addiction each time the nicotine wears off, and so quitting is not as difficult.
regulate the e-creimer as well by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 15:58 · Score: -1

we barely know the long-term health effects of being exposed to the regular creimer's terrible writing and videos!
Better than cigarettes! by Tony+Isaac · 2019-03-20 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Better than cigarettes! by phantomfive · 2019-03-20 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  But if I had to choose, I'd choose the e-cigs any day.
  e-cigs are so much better for you than cigarettes that everyone should switch to them immediately. For reasons you mentioned, like tar.
  
  If someone wants to quit, then quit later, but switch to e-cigs now.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Better than cigarettes! by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-20 21:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  When I read the headline I assumed they just meant banning their use in public spaces, like cigarettes, but no... They actually want to ban them completely.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:Better than cigarettes! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Pay attention to the flavors he uses (or get him to do it)! Some of them can cause pretty shitty consequences, like popcorn lung. I mean, if he's willing to go to his second or third favorite flavor (assuming he likes a dangerous one), he can avoid some big risk factors.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
4. Re:Better than cigarettes! by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-21 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  How about the fact that they serve as a 'gateway' to smoking tobacco? Or that they can contain nicotine, which is highly and intentionally addictive? Nicotine is naturally occurring in tobacco; in e-cig 'juice' they have to add it on purpose.
5. Re: Better than cigarettes! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  If you are so concerned why didn't you list the fucking flavors.
6. Re: Better than cigarettes! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. Gateway to tobacco. Funny everyone I know found it to be the opposite. They quit smoking because of it.
7. Re: Better than cigarettes! by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-21 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah sure meanwhile they're marketing e-cigs and vaping to teenagers. Wake up idiot AC.
8. Re: Better than cigarettes! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  That data is being investigated. I thought the numbers looked high as most dedicated Ecig stores(at least the 50 or so near me) don't even allow someone under 18 in the store.
  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/15/fdas_vaping_epidemic_doesnt_hold_up_to_inspection_139751.html?fbclid=IwAR1PYxZxyHz-GuoucFTimbF2OSKpEAKb6jLRXbWaoon4gt9CgPsP4MBlwqI
9. Re: Better than cigarettes! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not 100% sure what they are. I believe it's cotton candy and bubble gum, but would much rather someone check before relying on my advise. I don't use e-cigarettes, so I didn't memorize it, but the studies came out recently.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
10. Re:Better than cigarettes! by Tony+Isaac · 2019-03-21 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  If only I had that much influence over my 24-year-old!
11. Re:Better than cigarettes! by Tony+Isaac · 2019-03-21 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  Gateway? My son was already smoking cigarettes. He switched to vaping. I think that's a good move. Quitting would be even better, of course.
12. Re: Better than cigarettes! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  You mean like how cigarette smoking has been heavily targeted at teenagers and younger children (remember Joe Camel?) for the better part of a century?
  Is "the lesser of two evils" such a hard concept to understand?
13. Re:Better than cigarettes! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-24 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  Oh my god, for the 10000th time, E-Liquid flavors DO NOT CAUSE POPCORN LUNG. The chemical that does, Diacetyl, might be present in some e-liquids in very small doses, but the dose one would get by vaping it is still significantly smaller than the amount you get from traditional cigarettes and way too low to cause popcorn lung (studies on mice show that you'd have to be exposed to thousands of milligrams per day to feel any adverse effects*). Additionally, Diacetyl is banned for use in E-Liquids in the EU and pretty much all reputable manufacturers, even outside the EU, have stopped using it quite a while ago.
  So yeah, unless he buys them from a sketchy dude under a bridge, he's fine.
  * I have no official source for this, sorry.
Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by Tony+Isaac · 2019-03-20 16:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

How does that make sense?
1. Re:Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by thegarbz · 2019-03-20 20:43 · Score: 2
  
  How does that make sense?
  Even less sense: Make e-cigs illegal, but normal cigarettes legal, no need to talk about pot.
2. Re:Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Why compare the two at all? And why is this modded Insightful? It's an emotional opinion. There is no insight to be gained here.
3. Re:Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  Why compare the two at all?
  Just to freak out the stoners. For the lulz.
4. Re:Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  How does it not? E-cigarettes are more dangerous to the users. And teens think they're safe, so the smoking (that we had been eliminating) is coming back.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
5. Re:Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-21 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you'd bother thinking before commenting you'd probably understand the difference.
6. Re:Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by houghi · 2019-03-21 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Thinking before commenting? You must be new here.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
7. Re:Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? by cascadingstylesheet · 2019-03-22 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  How does that make sense?
  Because lefties!
  What ... are you anti-science????
thanks by juegosdeautos · 2019-03-20 16:24 · Score: -1, Troll

I hope "ban e-cigarette sales " will appears at VIET NAM Cat Mario
1. Re: thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  Vaporizers are legal in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I'm puffing on one right now, looking out over the beach in Da Nang.
Morons by slashmydots · 2019-03-20 16:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ban it first, test it later. Now THAT is typical California politics.
1. Re:Morons by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  let me guess... you work for boeing?
2. Re:Morons by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-21 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  What's the matter, your tobacco industry investments going to lose a few pennies per share because of this or something? Calm the hell down.
It cleaer to me.... by 3seas · 2019-03-20 16:50 · Score: 1

...everything in California causes cancer, read the labels.... exceptions are the things that probably will kill you and many of these things don't have labels. Can you name any of these?
1. Re:It cleaer to me.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  Ammo boxes now have cancer warnings.
2. Re: It cleaer to me.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  But if you smoke crack on the sidewalk, then go take a shit on the steps of City Hall - the City will give you a free apartment!
3. Re: It cleaer to me.... by Narcocide · 2019-03-20 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
4. Re:It cleaer to me.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 23:00 · Score: 0
  
  This state is known to contain birth defects and other reproductive harm.
5. Re:It cleaer to me.... by dwillden · 2019-03-21 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  NOTICE: The above comment has been found to contain substances known to California to cause cancer.
  As has this comment.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
6. Re: It cleaer to me.... by Type44Q · 2019-03-21 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  California politicians.
7. Re:It cleaer to me.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  You (may) joke, but I've actually glanced at the prop 65 list. Among its more "humorous" (or sad depending on your mindset) inclusions are Testosterone, Alcoholic beverages, Leather, Nickel, Salted fish and Wood dust.
8. Re: It cleaer to me.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Asking for a friend.
Are cigarette sales banned? by Roger+W+Moore · 2019-03-20 17:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Even more than that though why are they banning e-cigarettes, whose health effects are not well known, without banning ordinary cigarette sales where the health effects are well known and are extremely bad? Banning e-cigarette sales makes no sense unless you ban the sale of all smoked tobacco products first.
1. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by fustakrakich · 2019-03-20 17:29 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  health effects are not well known
  yes they are
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  You're not allowed to talk about the batteries, vape's real safety/health issue. The moderators get offended if you break the narrative. Yes, they are assholes.
3. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-20 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  Question about e-cigs: are they treated just the same as tobacco? For example, most places and I presume SF you can't light up tobacco anywhere you like due to second hand smoke, and there are special smoking areas.
  Does the same rule apply to e-cigs? Many e-cig users don't want to mix with tobacco users for the same reasons that non-smokers don't.
  What I'm getting at is how equivalent the two are. Is second hand e-cig smoke an issue because they can be used in any public space, unlike tobacco?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  First, it's not smoke, it's vapor. Huge difference there, as smoke is hundreds of times more harmful when inhaled than vapor. Smoking also smells much worse than vaping. The smell from smoke also tends to linger, where vape dissipates rather quickly. Smoke also stains walls and gets into your furniture and clothing.
  Second, yes, it's treated similarly to smoking in that you're not allowed to do so inside of most buildings. Most public smoking bans include vaping since there are still potentially harmful chemicals in second-hand vapor.
  Their ban on ecigs, to me, is ridiculous. It helps people quit smoking and it is much easier to quit using nicotine if you're vaping.
5. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Don't buy ultra-cheapo e-cigs. Get a quality vaporizer and the batteries are no threat.
6. Re: Are cigarette sales banned? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  I have some mercury vapor you can suck on.
7. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Banning e-cigarette sales makes no sense unless you ban the sale of all smoked tobacco products first.
  Except cigarettes aren't cool, and most teens won't smoke them. E-Cigarettes are cool and most teens will. So, banning them makes sense. Or raising the limit on them to 30 (so adults can quit tobacco) makes sense.
  Hell, the preliminary studies show that one of the flavors (I think Bubble Gum) may cause all kinds of nasty side-effects, which may be worse than cigarettes. And a lot of the cardio problems with cigarettes are due to nicotine itself...
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
8. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by radarskiy · 2019-03-21 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  A ban one but not the other makes no sense if you are trying to run a nanny sate. However, it makes perfect sense if you are trying to make markets work. A requirement of an efficient market is information about costs and utilities. Knowing the health effects of ordinary cigarettes allows those effects to be priced in. Without knowledge of the effects of e-cigarettes, the market cannot achieve equilibrium.
9. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by Roger+W+Moore · 2019-03-21 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  We should never be banning things simply based on whether or not they are "cool" but rather on whether or not they are dangerous. The toxicology of e-cigarettes vs cigarettes does not seem to be well understood yet (although clearly, they are less healthy than not smoking at all) but the physical dangers of cigarettes from domestic fires suggests that cigarettes are far more dangerous. So if e-cigarettes are too dangerous to be sold then logically, so too are cigarettes.
  
  I know, expecting a government to use objective evidence and logic when making decisions is certainly not "cool" at the moment...but by your logic that does at least mean it should be allowed! ;-)
10. Re:Are cigarette sales banned? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-21 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the ideal would be to ban cigarettes and e-cigarettes from people who currently do not smoke, while allowing them for people who do. This would prevent many new people from taking up the habit while avoiding a prohibition like smuggling operation.
  Banning a cool version and allowing an uncool version is fairly close to that.
  See, your issue is you say "Better that person X uses an e-cigarette than smokes a cigarette". And I'm saying better "N+X, X much less than Z, smoke cigarettes and 0 people smoke e-cigarettes" than "N people smoke cigarettes and Z people use e-cigarettes." They can both be true, but my claim makes sense on a societal level.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
San Francisco has a serious drug problem by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 17:11 · Score: 0

They should be more worried about the health effects of stepping on feces or used needles. E cigarettes are in a different time zone.
Lets make some $$ by wolfheart111 · 2019-03-20 17:13 · Score: -1, Troll

Google targets geo location most do. :)

--
[($)]
Re:Admin delete this by wolfheart111 · 2019-03-20 17:16 · Score: 1

please... gota learn to shut up lol...

--
[($)]
What about the benefits of nicotine ? by swell · 2019-03-20 17:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

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...
1. Re:What about the benefits of nicotine ? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 08:59 · Score: -1
  
  The only benefit of nicotine is that it helps rid the planet of fucking idiots like you far more quickly.
BSD by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 17:54 · Score: 0

It s anyone's guess whether this vaporware will see light of day. Overall, *BSD has had a dismal track record. To speak plainly, *BSD is a failure. Why don't we ponder that for a minute.
So why now? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problmatic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Oh good God by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 17:59 · Score: 0

I sense a burgeoning black market. Weâ(TM)re going to have to have a War on Nicotine when weâ(TM)ve already lost the War on Some Other Drugs.
Now pardon me, I need to go out to the curb and take a shit.
Pot legal, vape not...makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 18:12 · Score: 0

This is what you get from a bunch of pot heads.
I'm all for legalized pot, but if we're poison g laws based on health effects pot would not be legalized.
We want prohibition! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 19:19 · Score: 0

Ban alcohol too. Just don't ban shitting in the streets - that's a SF tradition!
1. Re: We want prohibition! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  I hope they keep the needle exchange and abortion clinics open too. For the children.
Cigarettes cause fires by Roger+W+Moore · 2019-03-20 20:07 · Score: 1

...and yet smoking, particularly in bed, has caused numerous fires leading to far more fatalities than the one attributed to e-cigarettes plus lighters can fail and explode or catch fire just like batteries. So even if you consider this, cigarettes are still far more dangerous so it makes no sense to sell these and yet ban e-cigarettes. In fact, if you are concerned about batteries then you'd probably want to ban mobile phones too!
1. Re:Cigarettes cause fires by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  I have yet to see a single disposable lighter go off in normal storage, or a single cigarette spontaneously ignite, have you?
  If the damn users wants to kill themselves, I have no problem with that. Just stay a safe distance.
  By the way, how well do these things works with hash oil?
Nicotine is NOT addictive by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 20:59 · Score: 1

https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/vaping-news-harvard-study-shows-nicotine-is-not-addictive
1. Re: Nicotine is NOT addictive by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, it's the 1950s all over again. If there was ever anything to prove that vape companies were just as evil as tobacco companies, it's this.
They are clearly better than cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 21:30 · Score: 0

As someone who live with a person who smokes, it was a great thing to get changed to e-cigs. Alone the smell and cleaning of the damned things (And my husband only ever smoked outside, but things still got nicotine stains, was bad. My husband don't cough in the mornings like he used to, and the house doesn't smell of tobacco anymore... Oh, and you can adjust the dose slowly downwards to kick the habit over time...
San Fran advocates promiscuous sodomy... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 22:46 · Score: 0

...and the negative health effects are well known. But they worry about e-cigarettes? Such a strange place.
Toxicity? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 22:53 · Score: 0

I too hate government over reach and the banning of freedom outright such as this, but there are certainly risks to this newish technology, such as the inhalation of toxic metals. https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20180226/toxic-metals-found-in-e-cigarette-vapor#1
Of course, the proper solution is to regulate and require testing.
Vape pens percieved as safe by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-20 23:28 · Score: 0

A grade school found several kids passing around a vapor pen on recess. Sadly some of the parents didn't see the big deal?? No like the candy cigarettes I remember being band when I was young because it could influence me to smoke. Sadly parents seem just as clueless these days about all this.
ban it all by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:08 · Score: 0

There are so many worse things people are doing.
Like hormone replacement therapy on children and trans men giving birth. What about banning those until the side effects are known. They're much more threatening to life.
Uh...poop? by valnar · 2019-03-21 01:20 · Score: 1

Banning E-cigarettes because of health effects? Umm, San Francisco? You have bigger health concerns to worry about.
Heroin is still fine by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 01:22 · Score: 0

But don't worry, heroin is still all but legal in Civic Center - have seen numerous cops simply walk past junkies shooting up. Glad they can tackle that pesky e-cigarette menace.
This is stupid. by flippy · 2019-03-21 03:10 · Score: 1

This is just dumb.
The current trend is to cry "but we have to keep it away from the kids!"
If anyone really cared about keeping away from the kids, they'd start with enforcement. I can't speak to California laws and regulations, but here in NY, every single place that sells e-cigs/vapes/etc. has signage prohibiting sales to minors - enforce that, if that's what you really care about.
Until then, I will continue to believe that the lawmakers are using "but we have to keep it away from the kids!" as an excuse to push their own agenda against things they don't like.
For the record, this goes for alcohol and combustible tobacco also. Let's get serious about actual enforcement of the laws and regulations prohibiting sales of all these products to minors, if that's what we really care about.
First step to banning all tobacco. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 04:17 · Score: 0

How long until the Fascist State of California just outright bans all tobacco products? It's coming, and it's brought to you by the same people who banned horse meat, fur, and pet sales.
On the flip-side, it'll be a huge boon to the criminal enterprises that lost all that money from pot sales. You think prohibition of alcohol was bad? Wait'll you get a load of tobacco prohibition!
Follow the Money by tehgeiger · 2019-03-21 04:22 · Score: 1

San Francisco along with the rest of CA is heavily invested in their citizens smoking. Back in 2003 CA used future payments from cigarette sales to issue bonds.

Vaping products are not covered under the MSA, so these bonds are floundering due to drops in smoking rates. SF needs people to keep smoking.

They knew this was a bad idea back in 2000: https://www.sfgate.com/busines...

https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/c...
vapes are weird by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 05:59 · Score: 0

I've smoked all my life, though very few cigarettes. Cut way back because time and it got less interesting.
I tried vaping but gave it up. It does something weird to the throat. Epic almost instant acid reflux that lasts. Smoking burning vegetable matter burns the throat but doesn't leave a strange dried out feeling for days, even weeks.
Anecdotal? Yes. But I don't trust the vapes ,I think the health issues are different. Probably for cigarette smokers they are on margin not as bad. Me? Maybe I'll get a water pipe or some gummy bears.
Look at the Objective Evidence by Roger+W+Moore · 2019-03-21 05:59 · Score: 1

I have seen neither disposable lighters nor e-cigarettes go off in normal storage. So if we are going on what I have seen then both appear to be safe. However, doing a quick search only reveals one fatality and 195 'incidents' leading to 133 injuries between 2009-2016 for e-cigarettes.

For cigarettes the picture looks much, much worse. The average ANNUAL rate of house fires caused by smoking is 18,100 each year in the US which causes on average 590 deaths each year and 1,130 injuries. So the annual rate of injuries is about 60 times the rate of injuries from e-cigarettes and the death rate is about a thousand times higher (with a significant margin of error due to there only being one recorded incidence of death from an e-cigarette. Worse the domestic fires likely killed and injured people who were not smoking. At least with e-cigarettes the risk seems to be mainly confined to the person choosing to use the device.

If governments are passing laws then they need to look at hard, objective evidence when deciding to ban things not anecdotal stories. When it comes to banning things we have to use solid, objective arguments and not go on what we "feel" because I don't want things I enjoy doing to get banned simply because someone else "feels" that they are bad. The objective evidence is that e-cigarettes are far, far safer than regular smoking from an accidental death standpoint (the toxicology picture is not yet clear it seems) so banning them while allowing regular cigarettes is completely unwarranted.
1. Re:Look at the Objective Evidence by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  banning them while allowing regular cigarettes is completely unwarranted.
  Tobacco industry wields more power. That's just the kind of people the voters elect.
  All the same, cigarettes appear more dangerous because so many millions more are smoking than vaping. And you should build your houses out of concrete, so they don't burn down so easily. They resist hurricanes pretty good too!
  And tobacco smells better, especially a fine cigar or pipe. You can smell and feel the poison coming out of those damn vape machines. Yuck!
If someone asks you to stop... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 06:01 · Score: 0

If you are vaping or smoking and someone asks you to put it out/stop, ask them:
"Is it the [smoke/vape] that bothers you, or just the sight of some enjoying themselves?"
'
Personally I believe it's far more often the latter.
Don't ban it, tax it by dkman · 2019-03-21 06:25 · Score: 1

Banning is not the answer. Steer people in the direction you want by making it hurt a little. And at the same time make them pay the bulk of the consequences by collecting the tax and using those funds accordingly.
Stupid government doesn't learn from the past so they jump to "no" and just drive it underground so crooks can profit. Then government faces the burden of cost fighting crime and the consequences of product X.

--
I refuse to sign
People have smoked pot for ages by rsilvergun · 2019-03-21 06:39 · Score: 1

the idea is that e-cigs, being so new, could have health risks that nobody knows. Or that poor regulation of them might lead to contaminates that are worse for you then regular cigs or pot.

I still think it's a terrible idea, but I oppose prohibition across the board. Legal, taxed and regulated.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:People have smoked pot for ages by Tony+Isaac · 2019-03-21 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, of course there could be unknown risks. Everything has unknown risks. You don't pass laws making things illegal because of unknown risks!
  This is compared to cigarettes, with very well-known and deadly risks.
  If they want to make e-cigs illegal, do the research first!
2. Re:People have smoked pot for ages by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-22 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Every toxic horrible social media company out of California is doing untold damage to society, but they don't give a flying fuck about that.
  It's all about extorting control over the "little guy"
Wouldn't they just tax e-cigs? by rsilvergun · 2019-03-21 06:43 · Score: 1

I mean, instead of banning them.

I think it's more likely that the entrenched tobacco companies are pushing this behind the scenes while they rev up their own e-cig products. I know for a fact they've attacked small tobacco producers before (a buddy of mine smokes a pipe and he's pretty pissed at recent regulations).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Fully researched? by TJHook3r · 2019-03-21 07:49 · Score: 1

Just one question... who would pay for the research? There aren't many big players and this thing would take years. Plus, how do you prove safety? Safer than not smoking? Obviously not. But better than the alternative, which is carrying on that 20 a day habit
I see tons of protests by e-cig by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 08:10 · Score: 0

This is the heart of protest (whining) culture. Young people will protest against government overreach for this issue, but be OK with overreach that does not take away their vices.
Why you ask? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 08:31 · Score: 0

California. Thatâ(TM)s why.
Follow the money.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 09:16 · Score: 0

California took out huge bonds with the promise of money that would be coming from a lawsuit against the major tobacco makers.. they spent the money before recouping the money that was going to be made on cigarette sales and they are in a bind.. They know damn well vaping is safer.. but money is forcing their hand and the "think of the children" excuse is being used to fight the enemy of their income. All the rest of it is horsesh%t.
Exquisite Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 12:52 · Score: 0

Hilarious that Frisco provides free dens and needles for addicts to "safely" do drugs...but they spend time and money to ban ecigs! LOL! Wackadooooos...
Found the source of your delusions by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 13:53 · Score: 0

OMFG! No wonder you conservatards are so fucking rabid. I went to your Daily Wire link. That entire website is one fucked up, bullshit story after the next. A million times worse than Fox News and stories crazier than the Enquierer. If you actually believe any of that stuff, I've figured out why you guys are so damned delusional. Holy fucking Christ!
ha ha, America's rectum is banning WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-21 19:53 · Score: 0

This is the city that cannot ban pooping on the sidewalk,
gave up on banning injected drugs and now has needles on the sidewalks,
has embraced pot with absolutely no attached health regulations on ingredients, strength, etc,
could not stop open sexual activity of every imaginable variety ON PARADE FLOATS, and just ended up endorsing it all,
---BUT---
along comes a safer form of cigarette smoking and, WHOOOAAAAH, NELLIE!!!! they're a gonna stop THAT!!!!
I HATE cigarettes and think "vaping" looks stupid, but I'm all for people who are hooked on nicotine using e-cigs - they're healthier forr both the users and all the people in their vicinity.