SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
San Francisco bans e-cigarette sales
San Francisco has become the first US city to ban e-cigarette sales until their health effects are clearer. Officials on Tuesday voted to ban stores selling the vaporisers and made it illegal for online retailers to deliver to addresses in the city.
The California city is home to Juul Labs, the most popular e-cigarette producer in the US. Juul said the move would drive smokers back to cigarettes and "create a thriving black market".
San Francisco's mayor, London Breed, has 10 days to sign off the legislation, but has indicated that she would. The law would begin to be enforced seven months from that date, although there have been reports firms could mount a legal challenge.
Anti-vaping activists say firms deliberately target young people by offering flavoured products. Critics say that not only is more scientific investigation into the health impact needed, vaping can encourage young people to switch to cigarettes.
Also at CNET.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by boltronics on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:43AM (10 children)
Why not ban cigarettes while they're at it?
Or perhaps they're happy for e-cigarettes to be sold even if they are far worse - just so long as they understand that they are far worse?
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:48AM (7 children)
Making something like 15% of your population criminals is probably not a good idea.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ilPapa on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:40AM (3 children)
My little California town banned smoking anywhere in public and nobody cared, because after all, why the fuck would you still be smoking? What is this, 1959?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:37PM (1 child)
"Nobody" is probably the same fraction as anywhere else in the US, 14% currently. California towns aren't that virtuous.
I get that cigarette smoke in public is a public nuisance. But I find it interesting how so many of these appeals are to apathy rather than the common good. If nobody really cares, then there's no point to the banning and thus, it shouldn't be done. Meanwhile, like most of the US, this town could have adopted rules that allow their minority of smokers to continue to enjoy the habit in set smoking areas.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ilPapa on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:26PM
When I say nobody cared, I mean nothing changed. There wasn't a mass migration of the 14% out of town and life didn't really change.
Plus, a lot of people took the opportunity to drop the habit. We have one of the lowest rates of smoking in the US at the moment, less than 3%. So that means this one law has saved many lives. Of course, you could still smoke in your back yard or in your house, but not on the street, in parks, on the beach, or any other public place. But people got the hint it appears.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by driverless on Thursday June 27 2019, @08:49PM
My entire country (mostly) banned smoking in public years ago. That, along with public education campaigns and taxing the crap out of cigarettes, vastly reduced usage. Turns out all a lot of people need to adopt a more healthy lifestyle is one or more nudges in the right direction.
One other point, the government here tends to tell Big Tobacco and many other Big Whatsits where to go, rather than enabling rent-seeking behaviour.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @08:31AM (2 children)
Just wait until they legalize recreational marijuana use. That 15% will go way up. Oh wait, maybe that's why they aren't banning all cigarettes.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:29PM (1 child)
My town has banned cigarettes and has legal recreational marijuana. You can even have it delivered.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @11:36PM
Hmm, seems to me then that the "dude weed lmao" campaign has been very successful. Maybe we need a "dude tobacco lmao" campaign?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:03AM
Another one of those R vs. D teamer issues. The R teamers have already been chargin' their tobacco lazers. D teamers will be struggling for the right to vape legally. R teamers already roll coal when they see a vehicle they don't like, so they know what to do.
"What's wrong with these kids?! Tobacco ain't guddenuf for them!?"
Watch Runaway and jmorris.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:12AM
No, just e-cigarette sale.
It is not illegal to posses or use an e-cig, it's only illegal to sell or distribute it. [legistar.com]
Which opens interesting approaches to get around, on the line of the pub sandwich [soylentnews.org] (pay for a "1 night private club membership", then go pick your stuff from a predefined location. I'm not distributing - while on club premises, if they want, the members are entitled to freebie stuff - I only restock the bowls).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford