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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.