Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Moves To Ban E-Cigarettes Until Health Effects Known (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Officials in San Francisco have proposed a new law to ban e-cigarette sales until their health effects are evaluated by the U.S. government. The law appears to be the first of its kind in the U.S. and seeks to curb a rising usage by young people. Critics, however, say it will make it harder for people to kick addiction. A second city law would bar making, selling or distributing tobacco on city property and is aimed at an e-cigarette firm renting on Pier 70. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its proposed guidelines, giving companies until 2021 to apply to have their e-cigarette products evaluated. A deadline had initially been set for August 2018, but the agency later said more preparation time was needed. San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera, one of the co-authors of the bill, which is yet to be approved, said reviews should have been done before they were sold. Juul, one of the most popular U.S. e-cigarette firms, rents space on Pier 70. It said in a statement: "This proposed legislation begs the question -- why would the city be comfortable with combustible cigarettes being on shelves when we know they kill more than 480,000 Americans per year?"
So...have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government? Does anyone else find it interesting that the cities and states that are the most friendly to legalized pot also seem to be the most hostile to cigarettes (and e-cigs now)? I'm pretty sure that intentionally sucking the smoke from burned plants of any kind isn't very good for you. The libertarian in me doesn't give a crap about either. One might come to the conclusion that they are OK legalizing things that they personally like, and have no problem curtailing the rights of any that they disagree with or simply dislike.
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.
I don't smoke at all, but my 24-year-old son did, until e-cigarettes became popular.
First, no tar. And no stench.
I'd a lot rather he puff on those candy things than the old-fashioned smoky ones.
Would it be better if he didn't do any of them? Yes. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the e-cigs any day.
How does that make sense?
Ban it first, test it later. Now THAT is typical California politics.
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.
> 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.
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.
Maybe installing some public toilets would ameliorate the situation?
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.