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.
Related Stories
The US officially raises the tobacco buying age to 21
A new law in the United States that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21 is now in effect, according to the US Food and Drug Administration.
Last week, President Donald Trump signed the new minimum age into law as part of a sweeping spending bill. On Friday, the FDA noted on its website that "it is now illegal for a retailer to sell any tobacco product -- including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes -- to anyone under 21. FDA will provide additional details on this issue as they become available."
The increased age restriction for tobacco purchases is one of several provisions outside of the spending measures themselves attached to the broader $1.4 trillion spending agreement.
Also at ABC.
Previously: California to Permit Assisted Suicide Starting June 9th, Could Raise Smoking Age to 21
California's Legal Smoking Age Set to Rise to 21
Tobacco Roundup
U.S. Surgeon General Decries Teenage Vaping
Oregon Becomes the Fifth State to Raise the Tobacco Age Limit to 21
San Francisco Bans E-Cigarette Sales
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:35AM (1 child)
Why on earth would someone want to set up a business like that in San Francisco itself, but they should move themselves to Oakland as the city shits on their presence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @11:25PM
Sounds like Juul Labs wasn't contributing to San Francisco's officials' campaigns.
(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/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:25AM (5 children)
Never mind the real problems, lets enact a completely ineffective ban on e-cigs.
Trump's Grave will be the world's most popular open air toilet.
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:14AM (4 children)
I'm guessing they have needle exchanges. Do they really think anyone believes this is about anything other than banning the behaviors of people they dislike? They should ban natural ice 30 packs and real tree camo while they are at it. I get that flat billed hat wearing Subaru drivers are the worst, but they still have the same rights as any other person.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @08:40AM (3 children)
Those e-cig people are a lot of the high salaried hipster high tech workers who fill the city coffers with tax dollars. SF doesn't dislike the people, they just want to keep the next big thing in healthcare cost inflators from being sold in their city.
E-cig's health risks are different than cigarettes, but they are still a delivery device for dangerous and addictive chemicals. Inhaling may be an effective and efficient way of getting drugs into the body, but the long term risk to lung health is very real.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @12:10PM (2 children)
No, the problem with e cigs is not lung health, in general.
That's the problem you get with cigarettes.
The problem is nicotine and whatever else is in the e cig juice, but at least you aren't inhaling combustion products.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @12:29PM
Just to clarify, of course e cigs aren't a health tonic for your lungs, just that the lung impact is much less than it is for cigarettes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:07AM
E cig juice is easy to make. You need food grade propylene glycol [wikipedia.org] and vegetable glycerin [wikipedia.org]. See also here [blacknote.com], every vape juice has some ratio of PG to VG. Can't go wrong with 50:50 if you're not sure.
You can buy 100 mg/ml nicotine/PG solution (saw some nicotine/VG solution also last time I was shopping) if you want nicotine (dilute into your PG/VG mix to 6 or so mg/ml). Cannabis extract is a bit more involved. These instructions for cannabis extract [vaporblog.co.uk] look good but I haven't tried yet. I'm waiting for retail "dude weed lmao" sales to open next year first so in case I screw up, I can always get more dude weed lmao.
Then for flavoring, you can buy flavoring from the supermarket (lemon, lime, vanilla, almond, strawberry, etc) or get creative with a double boiler. Made green tea vape once with loose leaf tea in PG (not an org chem person so no idea what the ideal solvent is for that), then once cooled used a syringe with a bit of coffee filter stuffed inside to strain. It was awesome, but it was one of those vape flavors that leaves a ton of residue on coils (needed to clean coil daily instead of my usual every 4 or 5 days).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:32AM
Why don't we just force cigarettes, vapes, beer and wine to taste like dogshit! It'll keep the children off!
I am still amazed that in this country, where "sin" is demonized by anyone who feels the call to force people to do things "for their own good", weed managed to charge through the back door like gay marriage and go from illegal to acceptable within 10 years *and* survive a presidential transition.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:32AM (1 child)
Prohibition has worked so well for everything else, sure let's try it on vapes too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mer on Wednesday June 26 2019, @09:04AM
It's not really prohibition. The measure is not to end vaping but to reduce exposure to the trendy e-cig marketplaces that look like apple stores.
Besides, a vaping prohibition wouldn't be that bad even if it was a failure. If vapers have to do it in covert clubs you've still killed the third party exposure nuisance.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:58AM (4 children)
Possibly a better solution is to tax the "sin" and have that money fund the extra
health care costs associated with the "sin".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday June 26 2019, @05:29AM (1 child)
Be careful with this meme.
Overweight and not exercising enough are also health risk factors.
The infrastructure for reporting and verifying compliance is already in place. All it will take is a law to comply or face penalties.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:49PM
There are already groups here in Oz pushing for a tax on added sugar in manufactured foods and drinks.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:38AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @07:19AM
Possibly a better solution would be to stop manufacturing problems so then you can solve them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Entropy on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:20PM
While smoking is pretty disgusting it's somewhat clear that e-cigarettes are a better alternative. Are they safe? That's very unlikely--Whenever you are physically addicted to a drug and do it all day long there's really no way that's safe. But they are almost certainly safer. Clearly this was bought & paid for by the big tobacco industry which also invests heavily in Hollywood productions.(Ever notice how many people smoke in various productions? That's hollywood selling out the next generation to cancer.
Practically speaking this will do two things:
1. People will switch to cigarettes, funding both big tobacco and the state of California in the short term. (Draining money from California in the long run due to health care)
2. People will mail order e-cigarettes.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:01PM (8 children)
While I am no fan of anyone smoking anything where someone else has to breathe the results second-hand, I have to say that the underlying presumption in the quote seems to be invalid. Are they trying to say that once you're not young, you're not interested in flavors / scents?
I mean, seriously now. When I eat or smell something, one of the key characteristics I'm looking for is a pleasant sensual experience. Why would smokers be any different here?
--
Dogs can learn up to 250 words/gestures and count to 5. Equivalent human age: 3
Cats don't care what you say and are sick of you anyway. Equivalent human age: 42
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday June 26 2019, @05:26PM (4 children)
As an anecdotal data point, my son's high school has an epidemic of vape usage. I've spent a fair amount of time waiting in the school zone and the number of kids huffing them in their cars on the way out of the parking lot is just ludicrous. I easily saw 20 vapes to one cigarette.
I fault Juul specifically. They are designed to look like USB sticks, and kids love them because they aren't suspicious.
This isn't hypothetical. I've taken away 4 Juul catridges from my 17 year old and two bottles of vape juice. He got a "grown up" vape off of eBay, and I've taken that too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @10:31PM (1 child)
Probably better to vape than to drink high sugar sodas and frilly caffeine drinks to stay alert.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:33AM
Nope. Drinking high-sugar drinks can contribute to the risk of obesity, but that alone doesn't cause it by a long shot, and the drinks don't contain known carcinogens like popular brands of e-cig/vapor liquids do.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:16PM
Please see my comment here. [soylentnews.org]
--
Don't anthropomorphize my t-shirt.
It hates that.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 27 2019, @03:14PM
I think what you're seeing has nothing to do with getting kids to vape. That's about rebellion, as I indicated in the other post I linked you to.
What flavors and stealth packaging are about is getting kids to vape with their products.
You somehow manage to stop Juul, it won't make any difference at all... the kids will still vape, and for the same reasons they previously did: they're trying to be cool, to rebel. This is the current path. Until there is a new path, this is the one they'll follow.
All knocking Juul back will do is shift the market. It won't reduce it.
The only real solution here, insofar as there is one, is to shift the kids perception of what is cool.
Good luck with that.
--
"Phonetically" doesn't even start with an f.
Crap like that is why aliens fly right by us.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:28AM (2 children)
From the articles I've been running across (like this one from Yale Medicine [yalemedicine.org] which quotes the Surgeon General) the studies over the past decade indicate that the #1 reason given by pre-teens & teenagers for why they started vaping is that the flavors/scents appealed to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:41AM
So you're insinuating that because young people like it, adults can't have it?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:13PM
Here's the thing. Unflavored cigarettes appealed to teenagers in great numbers long before vaping was a thing. They weren't especially inexpensive, they stank, they made their clothing stink, they made their teeth yellow, and they gave them incredibly bad breath. Clearly that wasn't about "flavor."
The general conclusion, reached over many decades, has been that the initial and continuing appeal was rebellion. Those decades of observation saw movies and cigarette companies all working to leverage that "it's cool" impression, and yeah, kids kept picking up the habit. Even after it became clear that it was fundamentally self-destructive. Even after it became much more expensive. It's worth pointing out that the cigarette companies made huge bank running with that assumption. The most "flavor" they ever really went after was that disgusting menthol garbage. That's because they didn't need flavor to sell to kids — or adults, for that matter. They used "cool." It worked.
Now we see a change in practice: these electronic things come along. The kids mostly use them. A lot of them stop using cigarettes. Okay, so what's it mean?
Looks to me like the rebellion has simply shifted from product A to product B. Assuming that's not the case requires a view that teenage desires have shifted in ways that are entirely unlikely and for which there is zero evidence.
Of course they're not going to say "I started because I wanted to be cool and rebellious like Frank"; they're going to give you a reason that gives the practice an intrinsic value: "oh, they just smell nice."
I highly doubt kids have changed enough to be "all about the flavor." No, I think they're still after "I want to be the cool kid" and I think that's almost the entirety of what we're seeing here.
If you actually want to remove the appeal of drugging, drinking and smoking (but I repeat myself... twice), not to mention whatever forbidden or socially unacceptable practice that comes along tomorrow, then you have to remove the tendency to rebel. Which very few parents ever figure out a path to.
Of course, knowing it's rebellion isn't going to stop the parental angst when they see their kids doing something self-destructive. So what to do? Focus on something they think they can go after: "Oh, it's the flavor, we'll stop the flavor!"
My prediction: the pressure will grow and grow against this, and kids will vape more because of that pressure, as the practice is perceived as even more rebellious.
It reminds me very much of how our society treats terrorism. Some bunch of mental cripples does some horrible thing. Society gives them huge attention and publicity. All the other mental cripples take notice and think "gee, I'm going to get me some of that attention."
--
Most adults read '#' as "pound."
Carefully chosen movement name: #metoo