San Francisco Bans E-Cig Sales

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jan 31, 2015
2,327
7,657
Boston
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/25/health/san-francisco-e-cigarette-ban-sales-bn/index.html

San Francisco will become the first US city to effectively ban e-cigarette sales, after the city's board of supervisors unanimously voted in favor of an ordinance Tuesday.

The ordinance says "no person shall sell or distribute an electronic cigarette to a person in San Francisco" unless that product has undergone premarket review by the US Food and Drug Administration. To date, none have.

This includes sales in brick-and-mortar stores, as well as online sales shipped to a San Francisco address. The ordinance also applies to flavored tobacco products in addition to e-cigarettes. The measure does not ban the use of vapes among people 21 and older.

"This is a decisive step to help prevent another generation of San Francisco children from becoming addicted to nicotine," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera in a statement, following the vote.
While I’m not a proponent of tobacco/nicotine products in any form and see the epidemic of teens using e-cigs and vapes, it’s at least a safer option for those who would otherwise be or had previously been smoking cigarettes.

I can understand banning in store purchases, but also banning delivery of online purchases to SF sounds a bit extreme.

I’m curious where marijuana pens and vapes fall under this legislation. It seems a bit silly to demand FDA approved e-cigs but marijuana, which is not FDA approved, can circumvent approval.
 

Apple OC

macrumors 68040
Oct 14, 2010
3,579
2,087
Hogtown
They can’t stand vaping came out of nowhere and is the cure for smoking.... they never saw vaping as a threat to the stranglehold they hold over smokers.

Now they want to put the genie back in the bottle.
 

ThisBougieLife

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2016
2,022
6,364
SF Bay Area, California
So what's stopping someone from buying one in Daly City and taking it over the county line?

Most bans seem pointless to me. I don't like the idea of more and more teens becoming addicted to nicotine because of "Juuling" but a ban doesn't seem to be the way to tackle the problem.

This country seems to have a real problem with drugs (legalization, criminalization, addiction, bans, use by children). I'm not sure what the solution is. :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: iObama

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,255
Scotland
Weird decision. On the one hand, I was gobsmacked that overt drug-delivery systems were allowed to be sold without betting properly vetted by the government. I sure as h*** think that the companies that sell e-cigs should be made to reveal the ingredients they are using and also the by-products created by heating the fluid, like aldehydes, that are formed during vaping. On the other hand, vaping seems to reduce harm in comparison to smoking tobacco, or at least that is the information we have so far in the absence of information regarding long-term effects. I think vaping should be allowed, but under the guidance of a physician to help reduce the harm of smoking. People who've never smoked, like teens, should have never been allowed to buy these things in the first place. Oh, and already e-cigs are being adapted so that people can deliver drugs other than nicotine to themselves. Vaping has the potential to be either a public health win or a disaster.
[doublepost=1561561910][/doublepost]
...
This country seems to have a real problem with drugs (... use by children). I'm not sure what the solution is. :confused:
With regard to selling alcohol, tobacco, and e-cigs to underage kids, I think the people who do this should be treated as illegal drug dealers and be made to serve time like other drug dealers. And their businesses should be shut down.
 
Last edited:

TheFluffyDuck

macrumors 6502
Jul 26, 2012
496
1,144
Vapes seem to be safer than cigarettes. I don't smoke so I don't really have a dog in the fight but people should have the right to do with their bodies as they wish. Dinosaur liberal in me.

For an analogy I rather ride in a car without a seatbelt, then on a motorbike.
 

stylinexpat

macrumors 68000
Mar 6, 2009
1,589
2,468
I don’t vape or smoke cigarettes. I don’t like either one of them but just because I don’t like them does not mean I support banning them. I think if people want to buy cigarettes or want to vape they should have the right to do so. Same goes for consumption or sale of alcohol.
 

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,842
So what's stopping someone from buying one in Daly City and taking it over the county line?

Most bans seem pointless to me. I don't like the idea of more and more teens becoming addicted to nicotine because of "Juuling" but a ban doesn't seem to be the way to tackle the problem.

This country seems to have a real problem with drugs (legalization, criminalization, addiction, bans, use by children). I'm not sure what the solution is. :confused:
Not a single thing. Until they start searching people at the city limits.

As for nicotine in Juul's, I understand it for those who are trying to quit smoking, but for a teen who just wants to look "cool", why even opt for a cart with nicotine in it? There are plenty of flavors without nicotine to buy.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,046
10,121
If only the United States could ban San Francisco.
Then you'd ban all the tech companies and venture capital. Nearly all SaaS services are from companies outside SV. Even VC on the east coast is severely left wing. The bulk of silicon Prairie money comes from either side of the states.
[doublepost=1561597031][/doublepost]I believe Juul operates out of SF. This is great. Personally, I'd rather see e-cig companies be heavily fined since their products are easier to access by underage patrons. In addition, their flavoring compounds are highly suspect and further entrance young, underage patrons to their products.

To quote some comedian I came across a year ago, you're not a badass when your waft smoke that smells of waffles and syrup.

So what's stopping someone from buying one in Daly City and taking it over the county line?

Most bans seem pointless to me. I don't like the idea of more and more teens becoming addicted to nicotine because of "Juuling" but a ban doesn't seem to be the way to tackle the problem.

This country seems to have a real problem with drugs (legalization, criminalization, addiction, bans, use by children). I'm not sure what the solution is. :confused:
Convenience factor.
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jan 31, 2015
2,327
7,657
Boston
Besides, it is very likely those additives - smell flavor etc.. - may be harmful themselves.
It’s entirely possible, if not likely. But SF hasn’t banned cannabis vape products (which can be and are often flavored). Cigarettes sales haven’t been banned. It’s remarkably silly.

This my have some unintended consequences for whom this ban is targeted. If they are already addicted to nicotine and vapes are banned, perhaps they’ll just switch to cigarettes.

Again, while I’m no proponent of smoking or vaping (especially the people who walk around with essentially a hand held fog machine), I wonder how this will affect “vape shop” owners. It seems to me they’ve pretty much destroyed these people’s livelihoods with little warning.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,046
10,121
The mere concept of flavoring those liquids used was very likely drawn up to get a new generation of smokers who may be "health conscience" and prefer something that smells nice. No idea if there's a flavor, too, but I suspect this was always the goal.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,164
IOKWARDI
Weird decision. On the one hand, I was gobsmacked that overt drug-delivery systems were allowed to be sold without betting properly vetted by the government. I sure as h*** think that the companies that sell e-cigs should be made to reveal the ingredients they are using and also the by-products created by heating the fluid …
You are talking about the tobacco industry. They have never been required to reveal what is in their product, which seems a bit odd, since the food industry has been required to. Seems like they should have been a long time ago, but they had so much capital on hand that they were able to buy their way out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,855
6,018
New Hampshire, USA
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/25/health/san-francisco-e-cigarette-ban-sales-bn/index.html



While I’m not a proponent of tobacco/nicotine products in any form and see the epidemic of teens using e-cigs and vapes, it’s at least a safer option for those who would otherwise be or had previously been smoking cigarettes.

I can understand banning in store purchases, but also banning delivery of online purchases to SF sounds a bit extreme.

I’m curious where marijuana pens and vapes fall under this legislation. It seems a bit silly to demand FDA approved e-cigs but marijuana, which is not FDA approved, can circumvent approval.
I think that it's all about the tax money being lost.

FDA approval is just a convenient justification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.Goldberg

cube

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,454
4,467
Nicotine is a naturally occurring substance. E-cigarette nicotine is sourced from tobacco.

The inherent safety or lack of safety of a drug has nothing to do with being “natural” or man made.
These devices are not just a bottle of nicotine.
 

cube

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,454
4,467
And cannabis vape pens and oils are “not just a bottle of” cannabinoids. Yet e-tobacco is banned but e-cannabis is not. Do you see my point?
I never referred to any pot other than in its natural form.
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,440
10,402
Not a single thing. Until they start searching people at the city limits.

As for nicotine in Juul's, I understand it for those who are trying to quit smoking, but for a teen who just wants to look "cool", why even opt for a cart with nicotine in it? There are plenty of flavors without nicotine to buy.
I think the fear is addiction through habbit is still a thing for youts and teens. I'm a smoker and a vaper, but I really would like to see the next generation of kids not get involved in either at all. And especially not till they're 18+ and understand the risks of such substances. Not like when I started, as a young teen. But hey, they still were on the fence at that point if cig's were healthy or not....

However, I'm against such ban. it goes too far and doesn't actually set to fix the problem with underaged smoking and vaping.

There needs to be a common sense approach.

1. Media campaign informing of the potential risks and problems with vaping and cigarettes.
2. Ban advertising of these products. Not the sales.
3. HARSH penalties for selling to minors (several thousands, repeat offenders maybe even jail time)

but an outright ban? Get real. Prohibition rarely solves things, unless there's a gross and immediate threat to public safety. Vapes are not a immediate threat to public safety.

things they could and likely should be banning way before Vapes: Fentanyl. Which has killed thousands each year due to overdoses. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates
 
  • Like
Reactions: A.Goldberg