Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government United States

San Francisco Becomes First US City To Ban Sale of E-Cigarettes (theguardian.com) 214

Posted by BeauHD from the fighting-the-rise-of-youth-vaping dept.
San Francisco voted to ban e-cigarettes in the first legislation of its kind in the United States. The Guardian reports: Supervisors approved a measure banning the sale and distribution of e-cigarettes in an effort to curb the rise of youth vaping. The measure will now go for final approval to San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who said she will sign the legislation, and stores in the city will be required to remove e-cigarettes from their shelves. After decades of decline in youth cigarette smoking, the rise of vaping has led to a major boost in nicotine use for people under the age of 21.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Francisco Becomes First US City To Ban Sale of E-Cigarettes More

San Francisco Becomes First US City To Ban Sale of E-Cigarettes

Comments Filter:

  • What's the point if you don't ban regular cigs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @05:42PM (#58824242) Homepage

    I'm not sure what the point of banning e-cigs is if they don't ban regular cigarettes. People will just go back to smoking regular cigs which are worse for you than e-cigs!

    • Re:What's the point if you don't ban regular cigs? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zaelath ( 2588189 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @05:47PM (#58824272)

      Don't you have tax stamps on regular cigarettes?

    • Re:What's the point if you don't ban regular cigs? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mattyj ( 18900 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @05:47PM (#58824274)

      "Kids these days" have nothing to go back to, they've only ever just vaped. 'Real' cigs are not cool, daddy-o.

      The irony is that in SF it's easier to get weed anyway, so toke up, kiddies!

      • Re:What's the point if you don't ban regular cigs? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @06:21PM (#58824494)

        "Kids these days" have nothing to go back to, they've only ever just vaped. 'Real' cigs are not cool, daddy-o.

        The irony is that in SF it's easier to get weed anyway, so toke up, kiddies!

        So you think the kids who are hooked on nicotine are just going to quit cold turkey - 'cause regular cigarettes aren't cool? Your brain doesn't care what's cool, it want's it's nicotine.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward


        'Real' cigs are not cool, daddy-o.
        Well.. get ready for real cigs to suddenly become cool again. You are aware that this nicotine shit is about the most addictive thing on the planet, right?

        I really fear the far left these days. They've become intolerant. They're likely stupid enough to try to ban all tobacco products. As soon as that happens, get ready for a bigger, faster, stronger Al Capone.

        Hey, maybe we'll get a new untouchables TV show, and cool gangster movies out of it?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PCM2 ( 4486 )

          San Francisco has already banned the sale of all flavored cigarettes and cigars, including menthols (such as Newports and Kools).

          I think it's all a little silly, really. If you want to buy these products, all you have to is hop on a city bus or train to the next town over, where they're not banned. Even the place called South San Francisco (aka "South City") is in an entirely different county than SF proper, and isn't affected by the ban.

    • I'm not sure what the point of banning e-cigs is if they don't ban regular cigarettes

      Cigarettes are already banned in almost any public place in SF.

      • Re:What's the point if you don't ban regular cigs? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @10:49PM (#58825554)

        We were talking about SALE ban, not USAGE ban.
        Different things.

        Now, on-topic: whenever I hear about some regulatory body applying or thinking about applying some sort of ban on X, I am looking at who would benefit from that, and in most cases the answer is simple: competition. In this case, it's not about youth vaping or health benefits, it's all about the tobacco industry having successfully lobbied against e-cigarettes.

        Why do you think all e-cig products coming from the tobacco industry are shit? They're shit on purpose, so that smokers would try them out, realize they're shit and go straight back to traditional smoking.

        In this case, tobacco industry won.

        • You're not suggesting that San Franshitsco Supervisors accept bribes (lawful and otherwise), are you? UNPOSSIBLE!!!

        • Why do you think all e-cig products coming from the tobacco industry are shit? They're shit on purpose, so that smokers would try them out, realize they're shit and go straight back to traditional smoking.

          They're in it to make money. If they can make money from e-cigs (using the nicotine extracted from the tobacco they already grow) that offsets their losses from declining sales of traditional cigs, why should the tobacco companies care where the money comes from?

    • I'm not sure what the point of banning e-cigs is if they don't ban regular cigarettes. People will just go back to smoking regular cigs which are worse for you than e-cigs!

      The point is that they'll have to go back to smoking regular cigarettes and less of a chance of quitting. What industry do you think is paying for this legislation? Follow the money. Determine 'who profits?'

      • Re:What's the point if you don't ban regular cigs? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @06:12PM (#58824452)

        The point is that they'll have to go back to smoking regular cigarettes and less of a chance of quitting.

        Oh, nonsense!

        What they'll do is buy their e-cigs outside SanFran. Not like it's all that hard to get outside the city limits. I foresee a bright future for stores just outside the city limits....

        • Or, if e-cig makers *REALLY* want to sell in SF, they will apply for FDA certification. I don't see them getting any kind of approval though.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            This raises an interesting thought... the FDA has already extended its regulatory authority to the field of E-cigarette products.

            Which means, that in theory, the FDA has already superceded any local regulations --- federal law trumps state and city laws, Therefore... a city cannot ban the product, because that would be an attempt to encroach upon the regulatory authority asserted by the federal government.

            I wonder how quickly this ordinance will result in lawsuits against the city by e-cig manufact

            • Hmmmmm...

              San Franshitsco's municipal budget is larger than the national budget of some small countries. Soviet American kangaroo courts typically decide cases on the basis of which party presented the judiciary a larger suitcase full of cash. I wonder who would win that lawsuit...

              • The toacco companies, based on your suitcase capacity argument.

                They've spent the last 10 years pushing for regulations and control and scare tactics over vaping, which credophiles on the left lap up and leap up to the bandwagon.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mysidia ( 191772 )

                Soviet American kangaroo courts typically decide cases on the basis of which party presented the judiciary a larger suitcase full of cash.

                Actually no you might be half right... a larger suitcase of cash is not the basis of a judge's decision; at least not directly.

                More cash does mean more ability to hire good attorneys for a vigorous representation in court.

                Getting a good team of lawyers to representing a client have a high cost is all.
                For example, a company retaining a highly credentialed full-time law

                • A good lawyer is one who is part of the same old boys' network as the judge. One who can offer the judge some blat if he sees things the "right" way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] A good lawyer costs a LOT more than $300k/yr.

                  Yes, it's probably not literally a suitcase full of cash. (Well, only sometimes...)

                  In Soviet America our totalitarian financial surveillance makes money bribery difficult, much like in the old Soviet Union. Thus our system, like that of the USSR, uses blat for bribery.

                  Blat means "f

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by mysidia ( 191772 )

                    One who can offer the judge some blat if he sees things the "right" way.

                    What you are describing is very illegal, and certainly Not how attorneys do business, specifically its against the judicial codes of conduct for even a mere appearance of Improprietary -- a Judge is required to recuse themself from a case if they are mere buddies in any way beyond the professional relations in court with one of the parties or their counsel; let alone a Judge exchanging personal favors with counsel; Your talk

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by PCM2 ( 4486 )

              Which means, that in theory, the FDA has already superceded any local regulations --- federal law trumps state and city laws, Therefore... a city cannot ban the product, because that would be an attempt to encroach upon the regulatory authority asserted by the federal government.

              In practice, it tends to work the other way around. Local laws supercede federal laws, provided A,) they are more strict than the federal laws, and B.) the laws are not illegal (e.g. unconstitutional).

              In this case, this is a law regulating retail commerce, an area in which municipalities generally have wide leeway. For example, they can collect taxes -- gas and cigarettes cost more in San Francisco than in many nearby places. And municipalities can also ban retail sales of things.

              You may not be aware that r

        • The point is that they'll have to go back to smoking regular cigarettes and less of a chance of quitting.

          Oh, nonsense!

          What they'll do is buy their e-cigs outside SanFran. Not like it's all that hard to get outside the city limits. I foresee a bright future for stores just outside the city limits....

          Great job, San Francisco politicians, for maximizing the law of unintended consequences. Now you have endangered your own children who have to make the dangerous journey to the edge of the city, dodging syringes and leaping poop piles all the way and back.

      • What's even sadder than the industry paying for it, are the voters clamoring for it. Hell, even the head of the FDA is spouting this "vaping epidemic", "2 million percent increase in teen vaping since 1990" bullshit.

    • It really is the dumbest thing ever. It took the black market a few decades to separate mescaline from toxic peyote compounds, and do similar things to purify opiates, cocaine and even pot (to some extent)to sell the drug desired without harming customers. But it has taken tobacco like 200 years, and now that theyâ(TM)ve done it, government is doing everything to stop it.

      If tobacco pollutants made you puke like peyote, it would make more sense. Having government mandate addictive drugs include pollutan

      • Actually, the black market had nothing to do with any of those extraction/purification methods... German pharmaceutical makers were the movers and shakers for those. The black market just made use of the techniques.

        Odd how a "progressive" (no, I didn't say liberal in ANY form) administration has fallen back to thinking and techniques from the early 20th century.

        "Progressives" are just fanatics with a different label. But the kids like to relabel things so it looks like it's something new.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Actually, the black market is just as interested in keeping its customers mostly alive and able to afford its product as any other market.

        • Actually, the black market had nothing to do with any of those extraction/purification methods... German pharmaceutical makers were the movers and shakers for those. The black market just made use of the techniques.

          Odd how a "progressive" (no, I didn't say liberal in ANY form) administration has fallen back to thinking and techniques from the early 20th century.

          "Progressives" are just fanatics with a different label. But the kids like to relabel things so it looks like it's something new.

          It's almost like people seek power because it fulfills a need to boss people around and feel in charge, and that the problem is the bossing and not the utterly irrelevant topics used as a distraction to claim the bossing power.

          Nah. Enjoy living in your world as meme evolution, instantiation, and spread units and ignore the monster behind the curtain.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Having government mandate addictive drugs include pollutants that give you cancer is insane.

        Probably not insane, just incredibly evil and immoral.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DrSpock11 ( 993950 )

      You have to love the logic of the modern left- they will do everything they can to ban (e) cigarettes while at the same time celebrating marijuana use and even heroin use by distributing free needles.

    • It's real simple...they sold bonds on the money they expected to get from the tobacco companies based on expected sales of cigarettes. Those sales are down, partially because of e-cigs, so they are not receiving enough money to cover the pay outs on the bonds they sold.

    • They've successfully made smoking actual cigarettes unpopular among kids. Then e-cigs reversed the trend of youth smoking.

      Ultimately, the government decided its better to prevent a new generation from being addicted, than (possibly, studies cut both ways) help older smokers transition to a slightly healthier option instead of quitting. I agree with that decision.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The point is to do favors to big tobacco, obviously. Somebody is on the take here, also obviously.

      Alternatively, you will find some deranged fanatics behind this that think only prayer is allowed to be fun.

    • https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/q... [www.nhs.uk]

      They don't want people to quit. For profit.

      Or they are ignorant.

      Or they are ideologically motivated so facts do not matter.

      The devil often masks himself as a compassionate angel.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by st0nes ( 1120305 )

      I'm not sure what the point of banning e-cigs is if they don't ban regular cigarettes. People will just go back to smoking regular cigs which are worse for you than e-cigs!

      Exactly. This is an absurdly stupid decision that will cost lives.

  • Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @05:44PM (#58824256)
    So they'll ban this while certain parts of the city are rife with heroin addicts leaving needles all over and homeless people shitting on the sidewalks. Also, what's to stop people just be able to order the e-cigarette juice online anyway?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So uhh, pretty sure heroine is indeed a banned (controlled) substance already.

      The thing with e-cigs is that banning the sale here will just make it a little bit harder to get which is likely all it will take to drastically reduce usage in the area. Nicotine by no means can be simply compared to heroine.

    • they could care less about the homeless. It's hard for kids to order online without parents. Not impossible, just hard. Also stuff like this lets the local legislature do something without actually addressing things like the housing crisis for the working class of SF.

  • A buddy and decades long colleague who smokes mundanely traditional tobacco products posited years ago that he wished they would make cigarettes illegal, since he had managed to quit all the illegal drugs he had prior trouble with.

    FD: This tired, old, "But the children!" trope is wearing me out.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      FD: This tired, old, "But the children!" trope is wearing me out.

      Unfortunately, it still works on the irrational masses. And when it stops, they will just put terrorism in there or socialism. No idea how they could do that, but they will find a way to modify the lie to suit their real purpose.

  • E-Cigarettes .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @05:48PM (#58824292)

    ... are a major problem for the homeless. There are no cigarette butts for them to pick up and smoke.

  • So e-cigarettes are banned, but tobacco is still able to be purchased? Not that I'm a fan of either, but people who vape don't stink as badly. While it's not healthy, it's certainly better than smoking cigarettes and cigars. If smoking e-cigarettes is bad, then what about pot? Are vaping pens for smoking whatever marijuana vaping is called going to also be banned? I'm not against people smoking pot, but if vaping one is bad, then why is the other OK?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      This is just a guess, based on a dilemma that has been discussed within anti-tobacco groups for decades:

      E-cigs are probably banned because they can be banned. If regular tobacco could be banned, it would.
      The difference is that there are too many smokers among the voters, whereas voters who started with vape are few. Banning smoking outright would be political suicide.

      Newer types of addictive substances and new ways of ingesting nicotine are almost always banned, unless -- or despite that -- it can be used a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        And then there is the little thing that recreational drug use has been with the human race forever. Of course, the religious fanatics that want to ban anything that could remotely be fun and is not worship of their fetish, have been too.

        If you want to ban dangerous substances, start with sugar. That one is the biggest killer. All other addictive substance come far behind. Next on the list would be alcohol, because it mostly harms others. That did not go do well last time though.

  • http://www.ktvu.com/news/liver... [ktvu.com]

    Livermore beat San Francisco by mere hours.

  • Good news for certain vape shops (Score:3)

    by guacamole ( 24270 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @06:17PM (#58824478)

    It's going to be a windfall for the shops located at the perimeter of the city borders.

  • So now SF residents will either have to go out of town and spend their money in Berkeley or what have you, or order online like everyone else. So?

  • This is the most ridiculous story on slashdot yet - who cares about an incomplete ban on something legal completely unrelated to tech by a single city in the US? News for nerds indeed...

    Let's change it to: Toronto becomes first city to bargain away 800 acres of waterfront land for development by Google.

    Forbes article [forbes.com]

    Globe and mail article [theglobeandmail.com]

  • Ban crap on the sidewalks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by peterofoz ( 1038508 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:31PM (#58825068) Homepage Journal
    San Francisco is an international joke. They worry about small stuff like e-cigs and companies with employee cafeterias, but have an enormous homeless, vagrant, drug, mental health and feces problem.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I hope that's still allowed.

  • "The resolution is passed. Ecigaretts are banned."

    (Small cheers. Then huge cheers come up from one corner.)

    "Who are you? Take those masks off! Oh, it's the tobacco companies."

  • What is the point of this? SF bans Vape sales in their city.

    So f'ing what. You hop on BART, go to the next city, go get your vape gear, get back on BART and go home. If you're smart enough to avoid paying a fare, it's a free ride as well!

    WTF has been achieved here? Extra riders on mass transit? Was that the goal all along?

  • With all the attention paid, you'd think people were vaping behind the wheel, becoming intoxicated and killing people!
    Wait no, OBVIOUSLY that's not really a big concern.... it's not like they're doing something silly like banning alcohol. THAT would never work lol! Banning another addictive substance though? Totally gonna work, especially since you're only banning the form you were paid to.
    Gg idiots.

  • that's nothing, they banned chocolates looking like cigarettes where i live (belgium).
    they came in packages looking similar to real cigarette packs, the chocolate was the size and shape of a cigarette and had a white paper wrapped around it with a small part that was yellow in color (the so called filter), you peeled away the paper and ate the chocolat, it was just chocolate candy, no harm done.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close