
San Francisco Becomes First U.S. City to Pass an E-Cigarette Ban - squiggy22
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-25/juul-ban-in-san-francisco-is-expected-to-be-passed
======
013a
Its very sad to see personal liberty treated with such contempt in cities like
San Francisco.

I have a friend who's 80 year old grandmother was addicted to cigarettes. He
wanted to buy her an ecigarette for christmas to help her quit, even though he
subtly felt like it may be for naught given her age and how long she had been
addicted. I suggested a Juul just because of how easy it is to operate and the
high nicotine content, given its targeted toward people trying to quit.

A few months ago he showed me a picture of her "empty pod drawer". She didn't
want to throw out the pods because she was hoping there was a way to recycle
them. There were probably a hundred. She doesn't smoke anymore.

Maybe, in the worldview of the officials, no one would consume nicotine. That
isn't the world we live in; in the world we live in, these city officials are
simply indirectly responsible for the premature deaths of thousands of people.
Moreover, I don't even know if that's a world we should be idealizing, in the
same way I don't know if a world without alcohol or caffeine or tylenol would
be more ideal than the one we have. Just to start thinking about it: nicotine
is a nootropic, and recreation is definitely great for your productivity and
wellbeing. There aren't zero positives to the chemical.

Its mostly just sad to see addiction so continually demonized in our society.
We want to point blame, and then push it out of our minds like it doesn't
exist. And in the case of these city officials; literally push it out of their
city. I can only hope that, one day, the people who run that very strange city
start the process of learning to treat other people with the love and care we
all deserve.

~~~
ezoe
When one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not
personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the
violation of other's right.

I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my
right.

If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action
must be forbidden for protecting the other's right.

So, in this case, the right to smoke shall be allowed in the condition in
which my right of no inhaling it shall be honored.

Now, if you don't have a level 3 biohazard facility, you shall not be allowed
to smoke.

My right is constantly violated almost everyday.

~~~
013a
You _do not have a right_ to not inhale someone else's smoke. Let's be very
clear about the language you're just throwing around like it doesn't mean
anything, because the Rights recognized by the Constitution aren't just
something that have no meaning.

That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for
some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to
smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke.

Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear
misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted";
they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind
of thing (our fore-fathers did).

~~~
FrozenSynapse
Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.

~~~
013a
Unfortunately, you also don't have a recognized right to not be sick, nor one
to guarantee comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. But the
situation is a little more complex than the absolute of "ban everything that
makes me feel funny."

~~~
ezoe
In my country(Japan), there are cases which ordered the neighbor/colleague to
compensate the health damage he cause by passive smoking for his smoking
inside his house or his desk.

------
zdragnar
I'll never understand why lawmakers think that fruit and other flavorings for
tobacco are aimed at getting kids hooked. It's almost like they think no adult
has ever enjoyed fruit or candy, and that making teens smoke plain cigarettes
will keep them from being rebellious.

I've tried almost every variation of ecigarette mod out there except
mechanical mods, because I'm not an idiot enough to know I'm too much of an
idiot to use one safely. Nicotine salt (the type used in juul and smok nord,
among others) are the best- balance of nicotine from the sub-ohm types without
the obscene amount of vapor pouring into your lungs, and the filter doesn't
constantly clog / burn like the older, smaller pen and marker varieties.

Does it suck that also makes them perfect for teens to hide their addiction?
Sure. Then again, there's also a market starting to boom for tobacco-free
nicotine pouches, using tea leaves or other filler. It's also way, way cheaper
to get the liquid for vaping online than it is in stores anyway.

This ban, at the scope of the city, won't help teens, and it's only going to
hurt the people living there. For better or worse, drugs like caffeine,
tobacco, alcohol, and THC are here to stay.

~~~
eridius
Adults like flavored nicotine too, but have you _seen_ the ads? They're
blatantly targeted at kids. Hell, I saw one once that showed a vape plugged
into the USB port of a kid's laptop in class, where the advertising was
basically saying your teacher won't know it's a vape.

~~~
e40
Then BAN THE ADS!

~~~
eridius
Right, because intentionally designing a harmful product to appeal towards
kids and get them hooked on nicotine is perfectly fine, just as long as we
eventually crack down on the ads.

~~~
dang
Please don't be snarky.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
jnordwick
There is snark almost every story comment section. And derision and sarcasm
and mockery. How is this comment so much worse that it uniquely deserves a
rebuke?

This comment is really quite mild actually. Certainly not worthy of a
moderator stepping up.

~~~
dang
People have different interpretations of these things. If you see a
particularly bad comment that deserves moderation, we'd appreciate your
letting us know about it.

Yes, there's far too much snark and derision on HN. It's an internet forum
after all. Surely you're not suggesting we should do less about it?

The "how is this comment so much worse" objection is based on a fallacy. You
don't not get a speeding ticket just because other cars were going faster.

------
pigscantfly
This is perverse given that tobacco cigarettes are still widely available. I
can't remember the last time I was actually satisfied with a decision from the
Board of Supervisors.

~~~
nilkn
While I don't live in SF or even CA, I'll try to offer an explanation of why
this might make sense based on what I've observed.

I'm 29, which puts me sort of at the intersection of two age groups right now.
I'm starting to be able to connect with older folks, and I can still connect
with younger 20somethings.

Nobody I know under 25 smokes cigarettes. Anecdotally, cigarettes in that age
group are nearly universally abhorred. Vaping, however, is seen as counter-
cultural and cool. Moreover, and perhaps worse, it's seen as nonaddictive and
harmless. Yet severe, almost crippling nicotine addiction is celebrated in
popular culture (e.g., [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-
turner-d...](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/sophie-turner-dark-
phoenix-juul)).

In fact, I've seen a depth of addiction to Juul that exceeds what I've seen
from older pack-a-day cigarette smokers. I know folks who have to take a hit
off their Juul every 3-5 minutes all day long except when sleeping. When
sleeping, they won't sleep through the night continuously, and if they do they
won't sleep more than six hours because they'll need to wake up and take
several hits.

Kids do not want to smoke cigarettes. Young people generally do not want to
smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes are mostly a risk to the older generation. Juul
and other brands have caused a new generation to become _shockingly_ addicted
to nicotine all over again from scratch.

Of course, with all that said, one must wonder which group of people should be
prioritized: kids or the older folks? This legislation is trying to protect
the former at the expense of the latter (by taking away an effective smoking
cessation tool). Clearly, this does not make sense in San Francisco -- a city
that more or less does not have kids at all.

~~~
tdeck
It's also worth noting that the unpopularity of cigarettes preceded the rise
of vaping by several years. So it felt like the problem was finally being
solved for a while.

~~~
refurb
The biggest issue with cigarettes was the cancer risk. Vaping is much lower
risk (if any) for cancer.

So even if people just swap smoking for vaping, a HUGE problem was solved.

~~~
tjohns
While I agree the cancer risk is probably lower... I don't think we really
know what the true cancer risk is for vaping yet, let alone the risk for other
cardiovascular diseases like COPD and popcorn lung.

This product hasn't existed for very long, so long term studies just don't
exist yet.

That said, there is some research that suggest caution is at least still
warranted: [https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-
of-e-...](https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-e-
cigarettes-on-lung.html)

------
mattoxic
I hate cigarettes, I hate the litter, the smell, and the smokers' belief that
they have the divine right to pollute my airspace. I also hate the taxes I
spend on keeping them in hospital - but. E cigarettes don't cause litter, the
smoke is far less offensive. If people are going to smoke they will smoke. SF
would be far better off banning actual cigarettes.

~~~
joshanderson
Ecigs cause tons of litter from the refill cartridges and from the batteries.
Ecigs are much worse of a pollution problem than actual cigarettes.

~~~
sokoloff
Really? It seems like every pack of 20 cigs, seemingly at least 10 of the
filters end on the ground somewhere, apparently based on some kind of fanciful
"Oh, _this_ isn't litter somehow..." thinking.

------
bcp2384
Convinced part of the problem with political offices is that elected
politicians have no incentive to actually consider second order or third order
effects of any piece of legislation they pass. Everything is optimized for
first order effects only e.g. optics because that is what they think "shows"
they did something.

~~~
QuickToBan
As a result the entire planet is in grave danger due to climate change. How do
we fix this? To borrow a little from Switzerland, I think a direct democracy
at every level of government is needed. But first we must have many more
remote jobs so people don't feel pressured to live in cities. They can then
result in the creation of new cities elsewhere with a direct democracy via
cryptographically secure apps.

~~~
scarface74
This very much HN bubble thinking. In the grand scheme of things, a very small
percentage of jobs are conducive for remote work.

~~~
opportune
Almost all office jobs could be remote only.

~~~
InitialLastName
Sure, but office jobs are a fairly small portion of the overall workforce.
Based on [0], it looks like the "Information", "Financial activities",
"Professional and business services" and I'll assume 50% of "other" and the
government jobs could be done remotely. I'm sure this is missing some jobs in
the other categories, and there are certainly many, jobs in these categories
that can't be done remotely, but so goes. That leaves < 30% of jobs that could
be done remotely.

[0] [https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-
industry-...](https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-
sector.htm)

~~~
opportune
I would say ~30% is not "fairly small". Also that 30% predominately works
circa 9-5 and is disproportionately responsible for traffic congestion.

Plus, it's unclear how those industries get split. For example utilities,
trade, healthcare, and leisure/hospitality all have a large number of office
jobs. And cities have a higher concentration of office jobs than rural areas.
I would be willing to bet that in most medium-large sized cities, half of all
jobs could be done remotely.

------
eridius
So I dug up the actual ordinance itself¹ and it turns out to not be a "ban all
e-cigarettes" ordinance. It is in fact "ban e-cigarettes that have not
received FDA premarket approval". Which is to say, if the FDA actually does
their job and approves the damn things, then they can be sold in SF again.

¹[https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3912E3-BB56-420D-896E-6FEA1391287D)

~~~
GhostVII
That's a pretty significant part which was left out of the article. I mean it
is effectively a ban right now since e-cigarettes don't have approval, but
requiring FDA approval seems far more reasonable than a permanent ban.

------
llamataboot
All prohibition is asinine but this has to take the cake.

Even if there is no way to prevent more kids from getting addicted to vaping
(and that's a big if), having less kids and many less adults smoking
cigarettes is such a huge win for public health.

\--

Anecdotally I went from 2 packs a day to chain vaping for a few years, health
improved enough to start being much more active, finally weaned down nicotine,
quitting vaping was hard but not near as yard as other cigarette quits, have
been nicotine free for almost a year (not even a puff) and now I avg about 10+
miles a week running and 50+ miles a week biking and am in the best shape of
my life at almost-40.

~~~
munk-a
I am happy that's worked out for you - and e-cigs are definitely less
dangerous than conventional cigarettes, but the adoption rate of smoking among
younger folks has spiked since flavoured e-cigs were introduced.

I really want vapes to be available as an alternative to conventional smoking
but the companies pushing them now are addicting a lot of new users, if the
market participants were more responsible these devices could have been all
positive.

~~~
r00fus
I work with someone who's crusaded against e-cigs and part of the reason the
ban was put in place was that JUUL was making kid-desired flavors like "candy
corn" and "unicorn milk".

E-cigs are essentially a very addictive substance (Nicotine) and a bunch of
unregulated (and unreported) substances + flavor.

They're also disguised as usb-keys and hard to detect (not like a cigarette).

I'm sure SF lobbied with JUUL before laying down the ban-hammer.

~~~
noir_lord
I vape, used to smoke 20 a day quit for 7 years, started again and then
switched to a vape.

JUUL absolutely should be banned from marketing at children, it’s blatantly
obvious they know what they are doing.

I’m generally not in favour of legislation because it often either doesn’t
work or has bad 2nd order effects but this is one of those cases I’d make an
exception for.

Over here in the UK they limited the max strength of vape fluid to 18mg
(previously 24mg was common) and reduced the max tank size (I kept my old one
as the they are where interchangeable).

It remains to be seen what effect if any that has though.

------
bogidon
Instead of writing short rages or immediately drawing party lines, those who
enjoy consuming nicotine might benefit from writing openly and honestly about
the fact that they enjoy these products. Perhaps mention the fact that current
research leans in the direction that secondhand vapor is less harmful than
secondhand smoke [1] and so vaping could be treated as more of an individual
freedom.

Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape, though I believe
there should be incredibly strong regulations against companies benefiting
from the sale of addictive chemicals. The interesting conversation to me is
how to protect children and inform the public while not compromising liberties
that don't _need_ to be compromised.

[1] [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparison-of-the-
effe...](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Comparison-of-the-effects-of-e-
cigarette-vapor-and-McAuley-Hopke/531a2a28e64e69b62070daf161992f94de9636e1)

From the abstract: "For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce
very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes."

~~~
phil248
"Personally, I think society should allow adults to vape..."

Not to nit pick, but that sentiment may be backwards. Society should not
_disallow_ vaping. By default, we are free beings and we are allowed to vape.
Until someone stops us by threat or force.

------
mullingitover
Let's work through the logic here:

San Francisco assumes that the existing controls on the purchase of tobacco
products by minors are a failure. They must act.

San Francisco's reaction to this is to ban all tobacco products from the city,
for the children. This is perfectly rational.

But wait, no, their reaction is to ban the _harm reduction option_ and keep
the worst tobacco product known to be the most addictive and the most harmful
to health on store shelves, where they believe they can't keep it from being
purchased by minors.

The headline should read, "San Fransisco insists that minors switch to
cigarettes." That's the only rational conclusion any sane person could draw
from this.

~~~
eridius
Vaping plus flavored nicotine is marketed at kids. If vaping were strictly an
alternative to cigarettes, marketed at existing smokers, as a harm reduction
alternative then it would be fine. But it's not, it's marketed as a hip new
thing, getting kids hooked on nicotine that would have otherwise never touched
a cigarette.

Also, that flavored nicotine smoke smells nasty. Most smokers tend to be aware
that people don't like their smoke and they make some effort to keep it out of
people's faces, but vaping isn't smoking, it's _vaping_ , and cool and less
harmful than cigarettes, so who could possibly object to vape smoke filling
the air? /s

~~~
asdff
Where is it being marketed? I've never noticed a Juul ad before.

~~~
eridius
Some time ago the MUNI stations in SF were absolutely plastered with these
ads.

------
dannykwells
I f __ __ __hate SF. Housing /homelessness crisis? Do nothing. Terrible roads
which are worse than Chicago (which gets tons of snow): do nothing. Horrendous
traffic? Do nothing.

But: Vaping! Freak out! NIMBY! Move fast!

Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But banning
it without any other options is...ultra dumb.

~~~
almost_usual
>SF. Housing/homelessness crisis? Do nothing

The city is attempting to address this very complicated problem and invest in
shelters / affordable housing. A lot of wealthy home owners protest when they
attempt to build housing for the poor (in their backyard). I'd argue the
homeless problem in SF is more of a national / United States issue than SF
specifically.

>Terrible roads which are worse than Chicago

I haven't been to Chicago in like half a decade but I don't think the roads in
SF are terrible?

>Horrendous traffic? Do nothing

Traffic isn't bad unless you spend all of your time commuting in the East Bay,
the Peninsula, or you pick terrible driving times on the weekend. During the
work week the traffic within the city outside of FiDi is usually fine (which
is most of the city). Outside of SF proper traffic is definitely pretty bad
though, especially in the East Bay.

I can usually leave on a Saturday at 8am, get to upper North Bay (Novato,
etc), crank out a 5+ mile hike, grab lunch, and be back at home by 11:30am
without hitting any traffic. People who decide to sleep in and leave at 11am
definitely hit a ton of traffic (because that's a terrible driving time).

>Agree with all other comments, this is stupid. Vaping isn't great. But
banning it without any other options is...ultra dumb.

I don't really get it, I imagine it's more of a jab towards Juul than anything
else.

~~~
tanseydavid
"I can usually leave on a Saturday at 8am, get to upper North Bay (Novato,
etc), crank out a 5+ mile hike, grab lunch, and be back at home by 11:30am
without hitting any traffic."

Surely you must be exaggerating? How quickly do you cover 5 miles hiking? How
quickly do you eat lunch for that matter?

~~~
almost_usual
Did it last weekend, 1200ft increase in elevation. Pack a sandwich to eat or
grab one on the go. I hike often and hit the gym 4+ days a week so I might be
moving faster than average. My lunch stop is usually 10-15 min.

Either way, if you start the hike before 9am in the North Bay you'll beat the
traffic rush out of the city. You could spend an extra couple hours if you
wanted. As long as you head back before 2pm you'll beat the re-entry rush into
the city.

------
skellera
Wow. Ban the way that so many have people quit their tobacco addictions with.
Just enforce the existing no smoking laws. I get it’s annoying when people
vape wherever but as someone who used to to quit then eventually quit vaping,
we’re taking an extremely valuable tool away from people who would like to
quit.

------
hollerith
From the article: ``illegal . . . for online retailers to ship the goods to
San Francisco addresses."

Does anyone know how the government of SF would enforce that on an online
retailer not based in SF? Tell them they've been fined, then sue them in state
court if they don't pay?

~~~
phil248
The idea that my local government is telling me I can't have a perfectly legal
product delivered to my home is infuriating.

~~~
balfirevic
I'm not from US so I was pretty surprised to see that a city would have
jurisdiction to do something like that.

~~~
hollerith
The city I live in (in the US) collects sales tax from online retailers, so I
am inclined to think that the government of SF has some way to inflict pain on
the online retailers that ignore this ban.

------
1952wasntU
Pot and tobacco is legal. Juul HQ is there. They are doing their best to
destroy SF from within.

~~~
conanbatt
They are muscling Juul for money. They don't want another Uber incident where
they don't get any cash.

SF City is one of the most corrupt institutions I know.

~~~
SomeOldThrow
Soliciting a bribe?

~~~
conanbatt
A "Salesforce voluntary Contribution" to the Transit center.

~~~
SomeOldThrow
How is that a bad thing?

~~~
conanbatt
Its robbery and corruption.

~~~
SomeOldThrow
Show me a capitalist not being paid for their work and I’ll agree.

~~~
conanbatt
I want to accept the challenge but I don't understand it. Are you asking for a
case where a capitalist loses? I can show plenty even in the US. Hell, the
number #1 platform of the democratic platform is to abolish private insurance,
and its not tied to a buyout as far as I know.

~~~
SomeOldThrow
I simply reject the idea of ownership and property that implicitly gives you a
right to take profit.

------
whymsicalburito
But regular cigarettes are still fully legal?

~~~
jasonhansel
Yes, but teens apparently don't think regular cigarettes are (as) cool.

~~~
baby
And forbidding something definitely makes it uncool amirite?

~~~
brokenmachine
If you're claiming that forbidding e-cigs makes them cooler, then that might
be a better overall outcome because the people who desperately want to be cool
will migrate to the suddenly cooler illegal e-cigs.

------
kaycebasques
The HN response seems strongly negative so far. Can someone educated in the
space play devil’s advocate and share ideas on why it might be a good move?

~~~
komali2
Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be
stopped.

[https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-
releases/2018/12/...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-
releases/2018/12/teens-using-vaping-devices-in-record-numbers)

>Reported use of vaping nicotine specifically in the 30 days prior to the
survey nearly doubled among high school seniors from 11 percent in 2017 to
20.9 percent in 2018. More than 1 in 10 eighth graders (10.9 percent) say they
vaped nicotine in the past year, and use is up significantly in virtually all
vaping measures among eighth, 10th and 12th graders.

It's already illegal for kids to buy them, but it's trivial for them to just
get'm anyway when the shops are already selling them. This will mean that kids
will have to leave the city to get it, or get it on the black market. That
will reduce usage, and send a message to other cities that it's a tenable
proposition (somebody had to be the first to ban it).

There are valid issues. The typical anti-prohibition ones that crop up are
"criminal black market uprising" i.e. the mob in Chicago during alcohol
prohibition. I'm not sure this is as valid as vape usage isn't as prevalent as
alcohol, nor is it as integral a part of our culture. Worth watching, though.

Another issue is the apparent hypocrisy - for some reason, cigarettes can
still be sold in the city, besides being decidedly more disgusting,
environmentally unfriendly, and unhealthy. On the one hand, they got this vape
ban through quick, so it might finally allow the banning of tobacco products
as a whole to come through as well. On the other hand, why target vapes before
cigarettes? I have no idea.

In any case, the goal is to get kids to stop smoking. Doing one part of that
(banning juuls) isn't the entire battle, and shouldn't be treated as such.

There's the devil's advocate argument. I personally believe that a better
solution is no prohibition, but _massive_ tax to ensure the proper cost is
being levied on these products - i.e., for cigarettes, purchasers need to
offset their decision by providing the State with the funds to cover the
environmental, public health, and public image impact of the cigarettes.
Similar to the carbon tax argument. Furthermore, government resources being
levied on educational outreach to ensure that the public is aware of the
genuine detriments to these kinds of products. Finally (this is already
implemented), ensuring companies like Marlboro aren't allowed to make false
claims regarding the unhealthiness of their products, even hinting as such
through imagery (i.e. showing an ad of a doctor smoking or something).

~~~
scarface74
_Easily. Vape usage among children and teenagers is going up. That should be
stopped._

Because banning substances has worked so well in the past - see weed.

~~~
komali2
>see weed.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, without further argument. Marijuana usage
went up a couple percentage points in Colorado after legalization.

[https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-viz-met-colorado-
lega...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-viz-met-colorado-legal-
marijuana-by-the-numbers-htmlstory.html)

Prohibition kinda works, kinda doesn't. I think it really depends. Banning
something like alcohol that the vast majority of the population partakes in
was very silly. Banning heroin? I'm not so sure it's as simple.

~~~
Noos
i think that if the legalized substance has strong sanctions and limits, it
can work. Like smoking is legal, but disapproved, heavily taxed, and limited
in public. If the sanctions don't or can't exist, legalization won't work in
the long run.

------
kart23
So all these people hooked on juul are gonna switch to real cigs. Nice.

~~~
munk-a
Sure but... it's sort of crazy that juul has been allowed to get a whole new
generation of folks hooked on tobacco. There's been a myth spread around that
e-cigs exist solely as a more healthy alternative to traditional cigs - they
are more healthy but those candy flavours have resulted in my office now
having more smokers in it than ever before... and they're all under 23.

~~~
jdhn
Smokers, as in cigarette smokers, or as in e-cigarette smokers? I thought all
the candy flavored tobacco cigs (minus menthols) were blown out of the water
back in 2011 or whenever the new tobacco act was passed. Interestingly enough,
the law led to clove cigarettes being relabeled to cigarillos in order to get
around the law.

------
KerrickStaley
Some background:

The specific ordinance (#190312) that passed is covered on this page:
[https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3895574&GUID=BABC44F3-8798-49AF-A75D-A27561A77B0D)

That page links to this video of the discussion last week on the measure (no
video yet from today's meeting):
[http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=1...](http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/33463?view_id=10&meta_id=727356)

The ordinance just passed the Board of Supervisors and will need to be signed
by Mayor London Breed to go into effect.

There are no minutes from today's Board of Supervisors meeting posted yet, but
you can see from last week's minutes that the ordinance has support from all
11 members of the board:
[https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf](https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/bag061819_minutes.pdf)

If you want to comment on this legislation, I think the best way at this point
is to contact London Breed's office by calling (415) 554-6141 or emailing
MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org. Again, the mayor has to sign the legislation
before it becomes law.

------
jdhn
This just screams of a moral panic that's no different from when Congress held
hearings about how violent music lyrics or violent video games were corrupting
the youth.

~~~
driverdan
It's worse because music lyrics are protected speech and can't be banned.

------
Simulacra
Of all the things they could be doing… taking a crap in the streets is fine,
but vaping is not. Got it.

~~~
bogidon
You can write to them about your feelings that they should be focusing on
different things.

\- Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org

\- [https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board](https://sfbos.org/contacts-
office-clerk-board)

Or if you have thoughts about this particular issue, it is now in Mayor
Breed's hands:

\- MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org

\- [https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-
breed](https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed)

~~~
kortilla
Do you think they care if you waste your time on that? The board has proven to
be incompetent for decades. The government of SF is fundamentally broken.

~~~
bogidon
I think that your comment is counterproductive. Even if the board wouldn't
listen today, if more people wrote, more people would feel a sense of
engagement with their city, thus more people would do other things, and more
things would change. Also, just how much time do you think this would "waste"
out of your day? You could do it sitting on the toilet.

~~~
kortilla
There is no evidence that having people voice their concerns to unconcerned
idiots is in anyway productive. If anything, talking to deaf ears makes you
feel like you have even less of a voice.

------
audi0slave
Pretty ironic given the same day Juul buys[1] 123 Mission for approx 400
million dollars.

[1]: [https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-
som...](https://sfist.com/2019/06/18/juul-just-bought-a-28-story-soma-tower/)

~~~
baby
Woot! This is NCC Group’s office. Are they getting kicked out?

~~~
dehrmann
I work in this building, but not for NCC Group. The word is "yes, once our
lease is up." I assume all tenants are in the same boat.

------
baggy_trough
Really, really awful legislation. Just shows you what a terrible job the SF
supervisors are doing.

~~~
bogidon
You can write to them about your feelings.

\- Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org

\- [https://sfbos.org/contacts-office-clerk-board](https://sfbos.org/contacts-
office-clerk-board)

Or if you have thoughts about this particular issue, it is now in Mayor
Breed's hands:

\- MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org

\- [https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-
breed](https://sfmayor.org/contact-mayor-london-breed)

------
blackflame7000
I can’t help but question if this is really how the forefathers intended the
land of the free to solve difficult problems by simply banning them. All this
hope for a better future is making a worse present with no real proof that
will even payoff.

------
ARandomerDude
Consistency fail: it's OK to be a pothead in SF but not smoke e-cigarettes.

------
crms1496
Perhaps the ban should have been targeted at ways to decrease the litter and
pollution that comes from disposable vaporizer products. Other commenter have
pointed out how Juul pods are treated as disposable and can end up as litter
on the sidewalk like cigarettes. However, there are refillable pod systems
that would cut down on behavior like that.

A side effect of requiring refillable pods may be an increased initial cost
for the device and a bottle of juice, but at the moment there are refillable
systems that are cheaper (and lower quality) than Juul.

As far as the waste from batteries and the risk of devices not being disposed
of properly, my personal device actually recommends contacting the
manufacturer or a shop that sells the product to perform a proper battery
replacement. The old battery is then disposed of safely.

Vaping in a way that affects other people is always wrong, but until there is
a push for society to call out the users who vape in improper places,
legislation will not fix the issue. I would like to see more efforts to
educate current or potential users about the risks of vaping and also the
risks of misusing their devices. The current culture of vaping cannot be
relied upon to accurately reflect the health issues that can from from it, as
the vaping community seems to always fight back against any possible health
risks.

------
yellowapple
Does anyone have a link to the text of the actual legislation? The article
paints this as a general ban on sale/distribution/manufacture, but elsewhere
narrows it to "on city property", so I'm curious about what the legislation
actually says.

Regardless, it's asinine that San Francisco would ban e-cigarettes and not
_actual_ cigarettes. It's also pointless; nothing stopping people from heading
to Oakland or Daly City (or further) for their vape pens/juice.

~~~
workingpatrick
Here is the link to the proposed ballot measure, which was somehow not linked
to by ANY of the sources covering this story.
[https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/LI031919.pdf](https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/LI031919.pdf)
Looks to be two separate measures, one banning all nicotine products from
being sold, manufactured, or distributed from City property, the 2nd banning
all Non-FDA approved products (vapes) from the entire city: 190311 & 190312,
respectively.

~~~
yellowapple
Nice, thanks! Yeah, it's ridiculous that news sites seem to be deathly averse
to actually linking to sources; if they took a cue from Wikipedia maybe they'd
be less vulnerable to "fake news" accusations...

Thanks to that, I was able to find the "legislative background" for the
restriction on non-FDA-approved tobacco products:
[https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf)

And for the prohibition of tobacco sale/manufacture/distribution from city
property:
[https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%20Leg%20Review.pdf)

------
phil248
Imagine if San Francisco could come up with some similarly hardline solutions
to our actual problems!

------
0x70dd
Almost 2 years ago I saw a comment on HN from a guy who quit smoking after
reading Alan Carr's "The Easy Way". As a person who was heavily addicted,
often smoking more than a pack a day, struggling to quit for good, I decided
to read the book. It did wonders - for almost 2 years I haven't smoked and I
don't miss it. It also helped friends to whom I recommended the book. I wanted
to drop a comment here in case I can inspire others to give it a try.

~~~
scarejunba
A friend of mine who I was hounding for years to quit got this book six months
ago and quit. Then he gave it to his dad and _he_ quit. I was fortunate enough
to quit six years ago but it sounds like this book is really transformative. I
haven’t read it myself, only seen these effects.

~~~
kaycebasques
This intrigues me. I'm not addicted to smoking but am going to check the book
out because I'm sure I'll pick up self-discipline tricks from it.

------
Wildgoose
They want to ban a safer alternative to cigarettes for people addicted to
nicotine?

Are they trying to make the health consequences of their existing drug abuse
problems even worse?

~~~
yellowapple
\begin{tinfoil}

The rich and politically-connected SF elite figure this'll kill the underclass
faster by pushing them toward cigarettes.

\end{tinfoil}

More seriously, I'm more-or-less in favor of banning e-cigarettes... if they
actually bothered to ban actual cigarettes, too. The failure to pass a general
nicotine ban has turned a presumably-well-intentioned piece of legislation
into yet another paver on the road to Hell.

EDIT: apparently the actual laws are more nuanced than that, and while they do
specifically target electronic cigarettes, that targeting is as an example of
a class of product not previously considered under existing legislation. I
haven't read through the full details on the relevant ordinances[1][2], but it
ain't quite as simple as "SF wants to extort Juul for money"; on the surface
they actually seem pretty well-reasoned.

[1]:
[https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190311%20Leg%20Review.pdf)

[2]:
[https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%2...](https://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/documents/SBC/190312%20Leg%20Review_0.pdf)

------
e40
I have never smoked cigarettes, and I have a severe reaction to the smoke from
them, when merely walking behind people on the sidewalk. I have never had a
single, negative reaction to vape smoke. My nose doesn't even detect it.

Also, I hate it when cigarette smokers throw butts on the ground or in the
gutter. I've had yelling matches with people on the street over it.

I understand the issues with vaping, but seriously, this is just insane.

------
workingpatrick
Seems like politicians just trying to win public favor by taking broad swings
at a hot topic, rather than trying something that would actually protect the
youth, or anyone for that matter. How has history not convinced these people
that prohibition is ineffective and a waste of public funds?

------
samstave
So this sounds super ridiculous:

1) so vaping pot is ok? Vs nicotine

2) the largest fucking evape co (JUUL) is hq in sf

3) JUUL is investing heavily into vape tech and cannabis

4) have you ever been to any place in SF without smokers

5) SF has the highest number of michelin starred resta of any city on the
planet - which means that you have a bunch of stressed out industry ppl who
are going to smoke cigs/vape cigs

—

Also, who the heck is “passing” this bullshit. They should have a /r/ for
“stupid things sf wants to do”

I dont smoke cigs or vape or even smoke cannabis!!! Yet i build cannabis tech.
But get your nimby ass out of here and stop acting progressive.

Progressive is to force the tech companies to provide data and services to
help you manage city sentiment.

Because youre failing at being progressive.

------
oarabbus_
So I can still buy a pack of cigarettes at any corner store - just not an
e-cigarette?

What the fuck, SF?

~~~
thatswrong0
I can't help but think of San Francisco as a giant joke that can be used to
make fun of liberals. "San Francisco first city to ban e-cigs, leaving
cigarettes perfectly legal" reads like something from the Onion.

------
bmer
I do not understand why this thread is so against this legislation.

Issues with e-cigarettes:

1) they bypass laws regarding cigarette advertising: compare e-cig packaging
with cigarette packaging; this is problematic, especially for youth (the non-
users most likely to be vulnerable to advertising for such products)

2) contrary to what is portrayed, they are _not_ interested in helping people
quit tobacco usage: tobacco companies have a large stake in this business

3) e-cigs minimize the danger of tobacco, by making the "delivery mechanism"
seem most problematic, and thus "solvable"

4) there are other methods to deal with cigarette addiction (nicotine
addiction, in particular): they just aren't as sexy

As for the law itself, it sets a historic precedent (if it truly bans e-cigs
outright, rather than just on city property/public spaces): tobacco products
can no longer skirt flat out prohibition.

I find it ridiculous that:

1) Juul's spokesperson cites "thriving black market" creation as a problematic
side effect of this law: the point of prohibition is not to stamp out usage
entirely (as history has shown this is not feasible), but to make it more
difficult than usual to obtain said prohibited product. Its all about
probability. Furthermore, when it comes to habits, even small barriers to
existing habits can go a long way in changing them (and conversely, removing
small barriers to new habits can go a long way in promoting them).

2) Commenters claim that e-cig users can just go to other jurisdictions,
making this law "pointless": again, its about introducing barriers.

The law is far from a perfect solution, and I doubt it was intended to be, but
it's just a small step in the right direction.

Finally, I think substance abuse problems fundamentally come from a lack of
satisfaction/connection with the world around us. There are a billion and one
ways to handle this issue, and I think normalizing substance usage only works
as a barrier to usage (e.g. Netherlands: remove the "sex factor" due to
"prohibition") when the substance has already been commonplace for years.
E-cigs are new enough that prohibition can send strong signals to people who
might be considering getting into it, especially because as a society we have
successfully built quite a lot of "energy" behind the idea that tobacco usage
in general is fairly harmful/not sexy (c.f. the situation with alcohol, where
it remains synonymous with "socializing").

~~~
cgiles
Because, at best, it is a very dubious and hamhanded way to solve a problem
that is ill-defined.

Is the problem advertising, or advertising to minors, of nicotine products?
Then ban that.

Is the problem that minors are able to buy vapes even though they shouldn't be
able to? Then strengthen enforcement (ah, but that costs money).

Is the problem that some vape products are too easily smuggled into schools
and look like USB sticks? Fine, then set a minimum size requirement on vaping
devices. Heck, mandate they be colored a bright primary color.

Who cares what Juul or the tobacco industry says? They will say whatever they
need to say to sell stuff, we know that. What matters is that vaping is
substantially less harmful than tobacco by all accounts.

Personally, I could potentially get behind a total ban on tobacco, as it is
very harmful and costly to society, although I'm generally anti-prohibition.
But what makes no sense in any possible universe is banning vaping while
keeping cigarettes legal.

------
cheriot
I swear officer, I'm high. This is all weed! /s

I can understand wanting to control access to something that kids are getting
into, but it feels like we're repeating some mistakes here.

------
conanbatt
"At the same time, the City will gift free e-cigarette devices to prevent
people from sharing devices and transmit diseases to each other"

------
scarejunba
Haha, I wonder how much of an effect this is going to have. Most SF kids know
how to take BART down to Daly City and everyone knows enforcement of using a
vape is not going to happen. Like you could always smoke weed on the streets
of SF. It was defacto legal for years.

It’ll be interesting to see if taking BART/muni down to Daly City will be a
problem.

------
colechristensen
The moral panic regarding tobacco and nicotine is well past its expiration
date.

Yes, the prevalence of smoking was a problem; yes, it's social acceptability
in places people had to be (workplaces for example) impacted the health of
people who didn't want it; and yes, some people still get addicted with sad
consequences.

BUT, at some point you have to let people have their freedom to choose and not
stop people using nicotine products who understand the risks and don't have
dependence issues.

Vaping tobacco products is excellent for quitting because the nicotine
delivered is less effective. There is not _less_ of it, it has diminished
desirable effects.

MAOIs are drugs which inhibit a kind of enzyme in the brain and among other
effects have strong drug interactions increasing the potency of many
psychoactive drugs.

Cigarette smoke either contains or has similar effects to MAOIs the effect
which is significantly more addictive [1] nicotine.

1\.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177026)

------
funkjunky
What the actual fuck

------
RickJWagner
"Cigarettes and other tobacco products will remain legal in the city, along
with recreational marijuana."

But e-cigs are banned?

That's messed up. If you're going to protect people's health (at the expense
of some freedom) be consistent about it.

------
bradgessler
Meanwhile you can buy vape cartridges of weed at any dispensary in SF. What
makes no sense is SF is going to wait for the FDA to study ecig health effects
while at the same time the FDA has made its position pretty clear on weed.

------
paulcarroty
Love SF, great move. Drugs and their addiction are not good for your health
period.

------
smith1615
I got the best online platform where anyone can find marijuana products
easily. [https://greenlandshop.site/](https://greenlandshop.site/)

------
QuickToBan
The homeless in SF use cigs, not e-cigs. It would've therefore been productive
to actually ban the sale of cigs instead so as to drive out the homeless, but
why would one expect an ounce of unbiased logic from politicians?

~~~
lolc
> to drive out the homeless

How nice of you to think of the homeless too. Where do you want to drive them
to?

~~~
QuickToBan
Actually I think that substance abuse (cigs, alcohol, heroin, etc.) is the
reason why many of them are homeless to begin with. The right thing to do for
them would be to medically cure their addiction, thereby making them capable
of helping themselves. This is hard to accept for those who don't know how to
cheaply and sustainably treat addictions.

~~~
noir_lord
Not just addiction, a significant chunk of homeless prople have a mental
illness that isn’t been addressed.

Given the way healthcare works in America (or doesn’t as the case may be) I’m
curious how that could be addressed.

~~~
QuickToBan
Mental illness exists mostly due to controllable factors. Those who don't know
of or understand these factors consider it a mystery that requires medical
management. Medical management is legitimately required due to evidence of
genetic or structural damage only. It is quite overused otherwise.

Here are many of the somewhat avoidable factors that result in mental
illnesses: (1) insufficient sleep (2) insufficient physical activity (3)
serious infections (4) excessive stress (5) high BP (6) high bad cholesterol
(7) insufficient omega-3s (8) unhealthy processed food intake and/or SAD diet
(9) vitamin and mineral insufficiencies (10) side effects of prescription
drugs, not limited to PPIs and anticholinergics (11) narcotic use or abuse

If you fix the above lifestyle factors, there would be far fewer cases of
"mental illness".

------
msie
So, like in Chicago with the gun-stores, you'll have vape stores open up just
outside the city limits. It's not illegal to vape, just to sell vaping
products or ship vaping products to SF addresses.

------
eqdw
Ban e-cigarettes, but get pot smoke blown in your face on every other street
corner.

I don't know why I keep expecting consistency in my public policy but I am
once again thoroughly disappointed.

------
cm2187
There is a bit of a contradiction in banning e-cigarettes "for the good of the
children" while legalising cannabis, which is known to have adverse effects on
teenagers.

------
kappi
Vaping is epidemic in US middle schools and high schools. Restrooms are filled
with vaping smoke and causing lot of problems for others. Schools are not
doing anything about it.

~~~
decebalus1
So.. should we ban everything which teens find trendy for everyone? E-cigs are
already age-restricted, same as alcohol and weed (which kids are also
consuming). Why is vaping specifically targeted? Perhaps we should go after
the schools which are not doing anything about it or after the parents who
aren't paying attention to their kid's finances?

This is just another moral panic.

------
fromthestart
I have yet to read or hear any reason that vaping nicotine is harmful, beyond
addiction potential.

Which imo is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco. I don't understand the
hysteria.

------
vuln
All of the issues Californians face and this is all they can accomplish?
Another ban? The largest economy in the US and this is it? What a shithole.
Literally.

------
on_and_off
Good.

I got a recruiting email from Juul a couple of weeks ago : "Help power the
movement to end cigarette-related deaths!"

That's bullshit. From all the stats I have seen so far (and to be fair, since
I don't smoke, it is not a subject I follow very closely), e-cigarettes are on
track to negate all the progress made on young smokers.

A good proportion of the teens that start vaping and go on to start smoking
cigarettes would not have started smoking without juul.

And before somebody starts claiming that Juul has zero responsability there,
Juul is also paying social influencer directly targetting teens.

------
vernie
Cool, good to see that all the other problems are solved.

------
scottlegrand2
Seems ludicrous to ban vaping without banning smoking. I wouldn't ban either
personally, but if you're going to ban one...

~~~
colechristensen
"Queers hate techies". I saw it spraypainted on the sidewalk a while back.

Banning vaping and not tobacco keeps with the aesthetic of embracing tradition
and rejecting technology. Ridiculous, but unsurprising.

~~~
kaycebasques
The "queers hate techies" thing is all over. While walking down Valencia once
and checking out ATA's window gallery, I got the impression that the vandalism
might be coming from them. Or someone masquerading as ATA.

[1] [http://www.atasite.org/](http://www.atasite.org/)

------
meowface
I could understand a "secondhand smoke"-like law being applied to them, but a
ban? When cigarettes are legal?

------
tanakachen
The real reason this ban is good is because e-cigarettes cause lots of plastic
(cartridge) and battery pollution. Regular cigarettes believe it or not are
not as bad for the environment (even the filters break down after a while).

I don’t think this health issue really matters because if someone is addicted
to smoking regular cigarettes that only affects them. Pollution from
e-cigarettes on the other hand is bad for everyone, even the non-smokers.

~~~
driverdan
That's even more foolish than banning straws. There are so many other worse
waste producing things like single use takeout containers and Keurig pods.

------
seanmcdirmid
Wait, they are banning e-cigarettes but not normal more dangerous cigarettes?
How does that even make sense?

------
systematical
Then ban cigarettes too? SF is a joke.

------
writepub
This has to be political, as singling out vaping while allowing alcohol,
tobacco, marijuana, AND requesting tax dollars for "safe spaces" for drug
injection, make zero common sense.

Let this be a lesson - politicians will greenlight you as long as you fill
their coffers

------
webninja
Bold move by the city!

------
huevosabio
Sigh... with all the real and urgent problems the city (homelessness, housing
shortage, vehicle break-ins, etc.) has they somehow have time to enact garbage
laws.

We need new blood in our city government.

------
m3kw9
Wouldn’t this cause issues like drug dealers?

------
notus
Good, this some Joe Camel all over again.

------
lsiebert
"After Donald Trump took office the next year, the agency said it would push
back until 2022 a requirement that vape companies submit applications to
continue selling their products. Once a product has FDA approval, the
legislation would allow its sale in San Francisco again."

The city supes want e-cigs regulated by the FDA before they are sold, just
like regular cigarettes are.

Just because FDA approval is not mandatory until 2022 does not mean that Juul
can't submit an application for FDA approval now, if it wants to sell in SF.

------
soup10
Hundreds of people openly selling and shooting heroin downtown and they pass
an e-cig ban, what a joke.

------
crimsonalucard
Poop city has bigger problems than E-cigs. When will these politicians get
their priorities straight?

------
exabrial
Why though?

------
slowrabbit
E-Cigarette Nazis fuck off

------
ben_jones
At first I was against it, then I heard a rant from the local cornerstore
about how e-ciggs were one of his best sellers and he was pissed and I
realized it was probably a net good since it was both rabidly popular and
really unhealthy. Sure, it's ironic cigarettes are still legal, but that
doesn't mean we should stop passing marginally good laws.

------
fady
Crazy. Good for them. It's like we forget about big tobacco. From a
health/social point of view I'm glad they coming out ahead of everyone else.
Curious how it will play out in the end, and if the Mayor intends on signing
it.

~~~
phil248
Forget about big tobacco? Are you kidding? Bans like these are a huge boon to
big tobacco. I'm sure they're writing thank you notes to the Board of
Supervisors as we speak.

