I'm always alarmed when I see communities passing laws to protect kids. Isn't that the parents' job?
I have two kids now in their fifties. They never smoked anything but pot, and they gave that up when they finished college. Nobody in our whole extended family uses tobacco.
We just led our kids by example, never by forbidding. I think parents can and should set an example. At least a lot more could. It is a silent way to bond the family closer together. Others may feel differently, but those are my sentiments.
Well of course they did! People might enjoy themselves.
1
Vaping is disgusting. Harmful to health. Waste of money.
Do they plan on actually enforcing the law? Wait for the justified outrage the first time a black man is killed by police while being arrested for selling menthol "loosies."
1
Tobacco Control uses scientific fraud to falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection.
http://tinyurl.com/hhzdnrz
And then they pawn it off as 'making sure the public knows about the dangers of smoking.' This is a serious civil rights issue. Government using scientific fraud to rob smokers' liberty is like throwing innocent people in prison based on fake evidence. It's time to re-frame this issue to reflect reality, instead of a grotesque distortion based on decades of hate propaganda.
1
Follow the money. If the tobacco industry contributed as much to Donald Trump as coal does, he'd revoke the taxes on tobacco as he has deregulated coal-fired electric plants.
In the 1960's, we sold over 200 cartons of cigarettes at our small store at the Fairfield Hills Hospital in Newtown, CT. Then a pack of cigarettes cost a quarter. I watched sales dip only briefly after the Surgeon General's report came out. The hospital also used tobacco as a sedative and dispensed tobacco products freely.
Sad.
Good for them. time to get rid of this new scourge on society, all in the name of making a buck
This is a ridiculous move. No one likes the idea of kids getting addicted to nicotine, but most people vaping aren’t children. They’re adults who used vaping to quit smoking.
I myself quit smoking by moving to vaping. It’s far less destructive than tobacco. It makes absolutely no sense to ban it.
This has to be one of the most backwards, self-defeating laws I’ve seen in a long time.
3
But when they came for my bacon cheeseburger there was no one left to speak for me.
3
The misinformation about e-cigarettes is stunning. First, they are not a "tobacco product" because they contain no tobacco. Second, nicotine is not a "highly dangerous drug", it's the tar in cigarettes that is dangerous. See the article in Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallysatel/2015/06/19/nicotine-can-save-lives/
In Britain and other countries e-cigarettes are seen as a major tool in the fight against cigarette smoking.
2
Presumably, there will be more marijuana users still living well in 30 years than tobacco/nicotine imbibers.
1
Kudos to my fellow citizens for seeing through the blizzard of ads (I saw many on nytimes.com) spouting sham arguments about limits on personal freedom. As a neighbor put it, you just have to follow the money (hello R.J.Reynolds) to know what it's all about.
1
I see a growing backlash against vapers blowing that stuff in your face. it's getting a reputation like something hipsters do, similar to not working unless you need money for rent or craft beer. Funny but not funny.
1
Before the disastrous Gingrich take-over of Congress in 1994, there was a nation-wide — world-wide — campaign for a total ban on all advertising of tobacco and promotions. It was led by Cong. Henry Waxman and the late Cong. Mike Synar of Oklahoma, and supported by many of us in the medical community, including the late Ronald Davis, who introduced such a resolution when he was a student delegate to the AMA, and later became its president. In Canada, led by their Non-Smokers Rights Association, such a ban was actually enacted, and followed after a few years by a demonstrable decline in mortality-morbidity statistics, until a massively-funded campaign by the tobacco industry led to the repeal of the law. In 1999 such a ban became a top priority of the World Health Organization’s “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,” later to become its “Treaty.” The fight goes on, with some successes despite huge resistance — but the principal remains the same: These people should not be allowed to advertise.
CDC says life expectancy has declined - (despite smoking bans and people bullied to quit) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db267.htm
1
I tried to quit smoking at least 20 times. Mint flavored e juice is what did it for me. In 3 days I ended a 30 year habit (and started a new one). I smell better, have more money, time & energy and recommend it to every smoker I know. But nicotine is still a dangerous addiction. One that I wouldn't wish on anybody, especially young people.
9
Seeing things in a Libertarian point of view, the government should not infringe upon your right to smoke what you want. However those who suffer from the numerous medical risks brought on by chronic smoking become part of our health care cost through treating the chronic illnesses (speaking as an ER nurse). When humans exercise common sense in their choices, then we can be a bit more Libertarian
1
Lies based on pretending others paid costs paid by smokers, and that non-smokers' costs don't exist at all (e.g. SAMMEC). The bottom line: It's the "healthy living" who are the financial burden http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/
1
Of course the increase in health care costs is also caused by the obesity epidemic. Are you going to force people to eat less?
1
Why is a menthol cigarette more unhealthy than a non-menthol cigarette?
4
“...flavored tobacco products, including vaping liquids packaged as candies and juice boxes, and menthol cigarettes....”
I’m so glad to see SF voters voting with their sense. No matter which way you look af it, nicotine isn’t nicotine. Tobacco companies would like us (particularly kids) to pick our poison. But why would have to take it, when the best way is to NOT haven it?!
2
Next up: Burger King, McDonalds et al. If we are serious about our health, imagine all fast food restaurants shutting down.
2
Eating is fundamentally different than smoking. You are correct, nutrition is important. Maybe it's the marketing we should be looking at. Candy flavors and toy prizes at the drive up are clearly aimed at a certain type of customer. M. Bloomberg put up most of the money for the yes on E campaign. You probably know about his feelings concerning fast food.
Thanks, San Francisco, Thanks Michael
Yay!
Way to go voters!
And way to keep many kids out of an unhealthy addiction.
It’s also refreshing to see that companies who sell unhealthy products can spend a lot of money and lose it.
6
“No more smoking or chewing.”
--- One of Jay Gatsby’s general resolves written when he was a young boy.
The tobacco companies have been successfully fighting their various battles for a very long time. They will now go on to win them some more.
1
Way to go SF ! health, particularly of youngsters more impt than corporate profits. Also shows how sleazy,creepy, and cruel tobacco companies are.
3
We just published an article in Your Teen Magazine (yourteenmag.com) about one family's very challenging story with juuling. We should not be taking this lightly. "Smart kids can make bad decisions with an almost palpable lack of foreseeability. In the span of just a few months, our 16-year-old son went from decrying ever putting anything into his lungs to using vape pens, Juul cartridges, bongs, and nitrous oxide. He was coming home high, and money was flying out of his account." Read this whole shocking story. Based on the comments, this is not unusual. https://yourteenmag.com/drugs-alcohol/found-teen-juuling
1
If RJ Reynolds is spending millions on ads, it's a good bet to vote the opposite.
From the CA Dept of Public Health, Tobacco Control:
"Unlike traditional cigarettes where the tobacco leaf is burned and the resulting smoke inhaled, e-cigarettes heat e-liquid that generally contains nicotine, flavorings, additives, and propylene glycol. The heated e-liquid forms an aerosol, not just water vapor, that is inhaled by the user. The aerosol has been found to contain toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, lead, nickel, and acetaldehyde all of which are found on California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals knows to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm.
These chemicals travel through the circulatory system to the brain and all organs. The aerosol also contains high concentrations of ultrafine particles that are inhaled and become trapped in the lungs."
3
Guns are far more dramatic, but smoking kills more.
No, they're not equivalent. Guns are usually not addicting.
But they are more prone to impulse.
Tobacco is not referenced in the Constitution, but addicting.
And we don't ban cars, which kill 40,000 every year.
Bumperstickers are never solutions in the real world.
With an echo chamber-dwelling society, we need much more respect for complexity, not just of problems, but of solutions. We do not need less passion, but we do need more perspective, nuance, and understanding of "the other."
1
Like guns, but unlike cars, tobacco is a product that, when used as intended, kills.
I believe in the power of government to do good and act in the public interest with legislation and regulation where appropriate, but this ban is just wrongheaded. If people don't want their children to smoke whatever; fruit flavored, menthol laced, cigarettes, cigars, e-cig tobaccos, etc. then that is a parental responsibility.
CA already has a 21 year old age requirement for the purchase of tobacco products. Enforce that jealously by coming down hard on a few shops that make under-21 sales. And don't just pick shops in the heavily ethnic areas of town.
Parents, set rules for your children and exercise your parental responsibility for the welfare of your children.
For the record. I quit smoking over 40 years ago. I do not smoke ANYTHING (except for the occasional slab of pork spareribs.) I do not, and never have worked for the tobacco industry or any level of government or law enforcement.
12
" E-cigarettes give users a powerful hit of nicotine, but without the mix of toxins contained in traditional, combustible cigarettes. "
It's not clear, at all, what other substances are included in these products, besides nicotine (a highly addictive drug).
As the FDA was blocked from requiring Big Tobacco to list the other substances in cigarettes, besides tobacco (some estimates go as high as 400 chemicals), no one knows what these vaping products contain. But shamelessly targeting CHILDREN, which what these candy coated, colorfully packaged products do, should be illegal everywhere in the U.S. Cancer is the result of tobacco products. NO MORE!
8
If targeting children was the real problem here, then why not increase penalties on selling to minors? Why ban ALL flavored vape products?
Sure, vaping isn’t ideal. Banning it must sound like such a great idea to someone who’s never had a smoking problem. But it’s a LOT better than the alternative, which is smoking tobacco. Banning it entirely has to be the most backwards, self-defeating thing we could possibly do.
2
as others have said, in the end it's not about "freedom;" it's about greed.
15
No, actually its about freedom.
It has been said that Libertarians see the world as a fight between coercion and freedom and we must always defend freedom. Conservatives see the world as a fight between civilization and barbarism and we must defend civilization. Liberals see the world as a war between the oppressed and the oppressor and we must always stand up for the oppressed.
I am proud to be a libertarian and will always defend freedom first and foremost. This is a ridiculous ordinance that will have zero impact on anything except sales within SF. Its pretty easy to drive to the next community to buy these products.
3
But not marijuana..... makes perfect sense. Of course, thirty years from now when the states sue the marijuana industry in a class action lawsuit, SF will be the first in line to collect their check.
12
I was in SF on Tuesday and saw a red-eyed guy walking towards me with hand-rolled joint in his mouth, readying to light it. Clearly not his 1st of the day, I would say. Very weird.
I suspect that scientists will eventually discover that smoking pot has its own set of health problems for the human body and mind.
2
We are at last focusing on stopping the deadliest drug scourge in America from hooking our younger generation. The deaths that are attributable to tobacco use are magnitudes greater than all other drug causes combined. Remember what Virginia Slim's campaign targeting women did for women's rates of lung cancer?
4
Banning something that the poor enjoys must make the techies feel benevolent as they price the entire Bay Area into homelessness.
12
GOOD. Too bad about the corrupt and corrupting store owners whatever minority who would risk the health of their fellow citizens with these nefarious products.
Ideas about work and the economy are going to have to change... and the population decrease.. please... Two billion more souls on this planet in 20 years might well be pushing it... and personally I am anti both "family"and "tribe" always placed first.
1
It makes me sad to see a city waste time and resources to put limitations on tobacco and vaping when their streets are filled with mentally ill and drug addicted homeless people. San Francisco is making a mockery of itself.
12
Maybe there should be a safe injection site.
1
Highly suggest reading Allan Brandt’s “Cigarette Century” to see how the tobacco industry were the first to really pump out Fake News. Glad to see that they lost.
The sooner we can stop killing ourselves with tobacco, the better.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_13?k=cigarette century&sprefix=cigarette cen&crid=18KWU113H4DT9
1
It is unseemly that corporations are allowed to create, promote and retail addiction. As a former smoker, tobacco products are insidious. Bravo San Francisco! I'm pleasantly not surprised that my hometown would succumb to Mega-Corporation marketing campaigns.
5
But alcohol is OK? Marijuana? Cigarettes?
3
It is nice to live in a state that values the health and environment of its populace more than our president would like us to. This state will continue to lead while this president would prefer we acquiesce to his regressive thinking. Sorry, Mr. President, but we don't share your vagaries.
10
I get this. smoking has a repugnant stigma these days. Like child abuse or dog fighting.....but to ban "Newports" (an American institution) is akin to banning Ford, NASCAR, Jack Daniels, or the NFL (NYT ?)......"tongue firmly planted within cheek"
3
Meanwhile, the streets reek of pot and homeless waste.
14
Yes, what a joke banning e-juice but still allowing vape and marijuana as most of my neighbors do. I live in Petaluma, a north bay city that reeks of "medical" pot and e-cigarettes. Meanwhile, I need an inhaler to breathe! Sickening.
1
So funny...Liberal rationalization. Can't smoke a menthol cigarette, but can go light up a joint.
8
Thats because cigarettes have over 500 chemicals in them and are highly addictive. Responsibly raised (indoor grown & organic) cannabis does not have high concentration of chemicals, herbicides or pesticides and is not addictive.
Meanwhile cannabis has many medically proven benefits for pain, insomnia, hunger issues, ADHD, seizures, etc
7
"So funny...Liberal rationalization."
In this case, the liberal logic is that if kids are doing something bad for themselves, blame corporate America:
"Proponents of the ban pointed to some 7,000 products, including those with flavors said to be particularly alluring to young users like bubble gum, chicken and waffles, and unicorn milk."
'... Mr. Bloomberg said the vote “shows that the tobacco industry, no matter how much money it spends on misleading ads, can be defeated. ...”'
1
Every neurologist I have seen in the last 10 years has strongly advised me to use cannabis. My primary provider agrees and wrote me a letter for such activity.
They have never suggested I vape tobacco.
1
Well done, San Francisco!!
Boo, RJ Reynolds, purveyors of poison and death!!
9
Does this ban the use on public streets? It's impossible to walk around the Civic Center without being down wind of someone vaping. Between the vaping, the human excrement, and the discarded needles, it's a health hazard just walking around the city.
11
I’m a pipe smoker. It’s one of life’s greatest pleasures and I highly recommend it. I’m also a dad to the greatest son in the world. I don’t want him to smoke. When he’s an adult, it will be his decision.
When a person is 18, they’re eligible to vote and die serving their country. They should also have the right to smoke and drink.
Why are Americans ok with signing over their liberties when they can solve a problem through good parenting and education?
I used to be proud to be an American. But between Trump and the left, our best days are behind us, unless we stop ceding our rights to the big brother.
12
I think the biggest issue is the American failure of taking responsibility for one's actions. Want to smoke a pack a day then pay all your own medical bills, want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, sorry no donated blood for you. The point is there are social costs to individual actions. When individuals live in a society that has the moral value to not let the sick and injured die in the streets, society needs to make rules to reduce the costs of poor decisions by individuals. If an individuals right to smoke costs me as a tax payer money to take care of them at some point in the future, then I have no problem restricting the use and availability of tobacco, especially those targeted at kids. But the right want to regulate a woman's body talk about ceding of rights...
23
When I was growing up, every adult around me smoked cigarettes. Neither me nor any of my siblings do.
1
@D.Andrew
I can't eat trans fats and pay my own medical bills, which I am more than happy to do. The government has taken away my right to do that. And now in SF I can't buy flavored vaping products, which have never been shown to have any impact on anyone's health.
But I can buy marijuana...
4
Honestly, the only issue that I have here is with the bright, kid-oriented packaging. Think only kids/teens like watermelon bubble game flavored things? Think again. Banning these things outright seems ridiculous.
5
Someone needs to explain the mindset of people that sell a product that kills people. Never mind that it's legal. And forget the arguments that consumers choose to use these harmful products.
The executives that run these company's are killing people just as surely as if they were commandants of a Gulag. Where are the moral voices of our society?
Where are the religious leaders who remind us of the meaning of a life of Christian virtue?
Where is our capacity as a nation to engage in moral dialogue and recognize that everything that may be allowed in the market place is not moral or right?
And when will we recognize that our constitution tells us that one of the reasons we formed this nation was "to promote the general welfare," not the corporate welfare.
8
The founding document of this country states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Unless, that is, of you live in SF -- where your pursuit of happiness has just been restricted by the state.
3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29807947
CONCLUSIONS:
A ban on flavoured e-cigarettes alone would likely increase the choice of cigarettes in smokers, arguably the more harmful way of obtaining nicotine, whereas a ban on menthol cigarettes alone would likely be more effective in reducing the choice of cigarettes.
>>>A ban on all flavours in both products would likely reduce the smoking/vaping rates, but the use of cigarettes would be higher than in the status quo. <<<
Policy-makers should use these results to guide the choice of flavour bans in light of their stance on the potential health impacts both products.
2
I have and use both a Pax 2 and Juul vaporizer, generally I'd be opposed to such bans, but the tobacco industry looks to fear tactics and broad protections for themselves, and that immediately makes me wary. Judging by the vote I'm not the only one who feels this way.
There was a compromise to be had here, but the people spoke quite loudly, they will not be scared into submission by these companies.
12
As a millennial, it sickens me to see how many people my age and much younger continue to start up smoking. I was happy that vaping was a "healthier" alternative for smokers, but now vaping has brought back the ancient notion that a nicotine addiction is somehow cool. People think they are opposing the tobacco industry by sticking with vapes rather than cigarettes, but the tobacco industry has just morphed its identity to become relevant again.
23
Guns are far more dramatic, but smoking kills more.
No, they're not equivalent. Guns are usually not addicting.
But they are more prone to impulse.
Tobacco is not referenced in the Constitution, but addicting.
And we don't ban cars, which kill 40,000 every year.
Bumperstickers are never solutions in the real world.
With an echo chamber-dwelling society, we need much more respect for complexity, not just of problems, but of solutions.
We need perspective, nuance, which does not mean less passion.
5
It is the delivery and packaging of the product that would make me uphold the ban. Had they kept the packaging discreet and not targeting minors, who cares what flavors are available.
10
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Bubble-gum flavors and juice boxes are obviously designed to appeal to kids. Menthol is a different story, and certainly a time-honored one. I think government's appropriate role is to make sure everyone knows about the dangers of smoking, to prohibit sales to minors, to ban smoking in certain public areas, and I like the idea of limiting kid-friendly products to adults-only stores. But at some point you have to let adults make their own choices. Otherwise the conservative/libertarian critique of liberalism as being too dogmatic turns out to be accurate.
8
The free choice to abuse your body should require a signed agreement that clearly states that the signee understands and agrees that these choices, when proven as the cause of a disease, impairment or other chronic condition, will preclude them from any government medical, therapeutic or financial support. When that's agreed to the libertarians can start the recall drive
Otherwise it is contrary to the public welfare to enable and support those who engage in clearly lethal behaviors.
10
You're right, JB, about "clearly lethal." My sister-in-law's father smoked right up until his death at 98. He could have made 100 if he hadn't smoked for 70 years.
1
Then perhaps the government should require all people to submit a detailed account of their diet, exercise habits, any actions that may benefit or impact their health negatively, to name a few, for exactly the same purposes. If the goal is to not to pay for someone who gets sick, then surely your logic extends to anything and everything that might have affected the health of an individual.
3
Californians have great health coverage statewide It makes economic sense to limit exposure to harmful products. Probably saves the state more money the the Taxes bring in. San Francisco is doing the state a favor. Whereas the Tobacco lobby would happily spend 60 million making people smokers.
12
only menthol cigarettes? As the name of my favorite rap group goes, das racist.
5
What do menthols have to do with people of color? What a ridiculous statement.
2
@Iain Allegedly, menthol cigarettes are favored more by people of color than by other people. This ban is really about flavorings which mask the taste and menthol would fall into this category. This is one way the tobacco companies get kids addicted. They mask the taste or use enticing flavors.
8
For decades, menthol cigarettes have been marketed specifically to people of color, especially in poorer neighborhoods. This dates back to studies RJReynolds did back in the 1950's that indicated black smokers voiced a preference for wanting "more menthol" in their products, so they & Lorillard (producer of Kool & Newport) decided to target their menthols to them, going so far as to giving out free menthol cigarette samples to children in black neighborhoods and placing the majority of their advertising budgets for their menthol brands in black magazines (like Jet & Ebony) and in local black neighborhoods' billboards and posters.
(More history on the link between menthol cigarette marketing and minorities can be found here:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-big-tobacco-targeted-blacks-with-ads-fo...
7
I believe they smoke menthol cigarettes at a much higher rate- upwards of 80-90% as per the CDC
3
REALITY: almost everything decided on the left coast needs a scotus review to actually decide a case based on the law
4
Oh, you mean like gay marriage? That originated in San Francisco and SCOTUS upheld it, right? Besides, what legal reason would compel the SCOTUS take this particular issue up? There was nothing over-reaching or vague in the law. The tobacco company is the one that made the miscalculation to put it on the ballot and the citizens voted to make their preferences known.
1
RJR....spit on them. They don't care about health any more than the NRA cares about kids. I remember the Friday corporate parties with free-flowing booze followed by harrowing rush-hour commutes.
7
From experience and market data I’ve seen (I’m a fairly tobacco-ignorant person - tried all three forms of burned-tobacco products 1-2x each in college, rest is book learning, and, 35 years our-of-date):
1) Most pipe tobacco has some kind of moisturizer/flavor product (which, since ingredients are never listed* could multiply the negative effects),
2) Cultural usage: advertising data from the days of tobacco advertising showed a preference for mentholated tobacco among blacks - is this discrimination?
Tobacco is POISON but prohibition won’t work - you’re creating a new pointless crime.
* - why is it one must list ALMOST every ingredient of every product for human consumption, from cancer meds to Twinkles, but not known carcinogens added to a known carcinogen, that might escalate the risk or flavors in gene- including stay-lit products in cigarettes that cause many ahouse fire, and flavored alcohol products, other than the natural big molecules which flavor the stuff due to the initial item being fermented/aged (Often listed as advertising on the bottle along with aging time in years) - these days, any product can be reverse-engineered illegally. But every ingredient should be listed everywhereI doubt we’ll ever see ‘generic Benedictine’ Then we’d also get Coca-Cola’s “secret seven” and tha particular herbs and spices and “natural and artificial flavors” the dangerous exemption in the supermarket - important for those who can die from eating thyme!
3
I ask many of the kids who vape grape, mango and other flavors at my son's high school if they know there is nicotine in it. Most say no or very little, when in fact a pod from JUUL has 1-2 pack of cigarettes worth. Kids believe it is safe and non-addictive.
Folks, these companies got to our kids without us even knowing. It is the biggest health crisis in teens today, and right under our noses:
http://www.teen-vaping.org/
39
It may seem to be intolerant to forbid the public use of vapor and smoke until one grasps how much matter is in them and how much of it other people have no choice but to breathe into their bodies.
5
Advertising and promotional efforts for products with nicotine should be banned. It is hard to understand why a person can work with any of the big tobacco companies knowing that their products could harm and kill their own children or grandchildren. If you are a decent person you should boycott advertising agencies with big tobacco customers. And many thanks to Michael R. Bloomberg for his kind help to this fight.
4
I can't believe this is even up for discussion? Arguing for nicotine products that are CLEARLY designed to get kids addicted to nicotine with everything we know about that drug is unconscionable.
And, Amoret... Really? You think candy flavored vape products are OK because YOU were able to quit smoking cigarettes (are you vaping products with nicotine BTW? - you don't specify)? Who cares about kids getting hooked on nicotine as long as you have addressed your individual needs, right?
Also, I would like to point out that around 480,000 people die from cigarettes PER YEAR, while ZERO deaths have been attributed to overdoses from marijuana.
Look, if adults want to smoke tobacco out of the range of the affects of second hand smoke, fine. But designing nicotine products for children is disgusting and should be criminal... When I was a kid, we could buy candy cigarettes and watched Marlboro Man commercials... I was addicted to nicotine by age fourteen. Today, fewer teen are starting smoking than when I was young (but not by as much as it should be). Let's not lose ground by allowing these products to be sold. Let's protect our children as best we can... Bad enough we are indifferent to deaths of children by gun violence.
22
I'm not a smoker, but seriously this post contains so much reactionary misinformation that I can't help but respond to it.
Nicotine on its own is an addictive stimulant. _Just_ like caffeine. Nicotine on its own does not cause nearly as much cancer as the carcinogenic byproducts of tobacco / tar / whatever else is in cigarette combustion. Nicotine really isn't "unconscionable" any more than caffeine is.
The jury is still out on what sort of damage vaping can cause, but it's more than evident that vaping is safer for you than smoking. No combustion and no tar means fewer carcinogens. No one is saying vaping is safe, but it is definitely _safer_.
From 2011 to 2016, cigarette use amongst high schoolers dropped from 15.8% to 8%. In that same time, e-cig use increased from 1.5% to 11.3%. Overall tobacco usage hasn't changed significantly from 24.2% in 2011 to 20.2% 2016.
So you basically have the same (if a bit fewer) kids using tobacco products, but they're vaping instead of smoking. If we agree that vaping is safer than smoking (it certainly seems to be the case), then _this is a good thing_.
This is bad legislation, plain and simple. These products are already banned from being sold to children. I'm supportive of banning marketing and packaging materials that appeal to children, sure, but don't take away a safer alternative to smoking from people.
5
Hi Christopher. Please compare apples to apples. Deaths from "overdoses" of marijuana should be compared to "overdoses" of cigarettes. How exactly do you overdose from nicotine or THC? Are you referring to the insidious diseases of chronic long term smoking. If that's the case, use the same line of comparison for both. Also the differences in mortality may be attributed to the available studies and also on the number of people who report using nicotine vs THC; since THC is still illegal in many states and at the federal level, there may be significant underreporting or lack of funding and this will need to be verified. It'll make your statement stronger and more valid. Cheers!
4
Comparing nicotine to caffeine is laughable. Nicotine is about the most addictive substance out there. These products ARE designed for children. To argue otherwise is simply being obtuse. Adults can choose to use "safer" ( an assertion contradicted by you in paragraph 2) alternatives to smoking... In the end we agree: ban the marketing and packaging of nicotine products to children.
Purveyors of all sorts of these useless poisons need to face the cold reality of just what are the nature of their products. Re-Branding doesn't change a thing. Alcohol MIGHT have some usefulness, nutritional or otherwise, however slim, but nicotine is useless and extremely harmful to the body.
4
Don't worry big tobacco is working hard behind the scenes to move to pot and start that addiction going, china is the only reason they are still making billions in tobacco. Eventually when we get national healthcare and probably 20 years from now pot will be illegal again, thanks to big tobacco.
1
Cannabis is not addictive. Stop repeating lies. Careful regulation of cannabis production and distribution will eliminate Big Tobacco gaining a foothold. They were allowed by our government to never reveal the hundreds of other chemicals they put in their products in addition to tobacco. We can never allow that to happen again. There's really no connection between cannabis and tobacco, other than the traditional means of use, smoking. However, cannabis products can be ingested in any variety of foodstuffs, which is a safer alternative, if used responsibly. These products are NOT marketed to children, unlike the vaping products the article discusses.
1
The tobacco industry will just have to work a little harder to recruit the next generation of nicotine addicts.
3
I used vaping to quit smoking 3 years ago. It worked. If SF want to restrict minors from these products, that's fine. But to outright ban them for everyone else is an egregious overreach.
As an aside... nicotine itself is found in nature all over the place, just like caffeine. And like caffeine it's harmless if used in moderation.
8
I smoked for 40+ years until I gave it up 6 years ago, along with alcohol. And I gave up drugs, primarily marijuana many years ago.
For my years of smoking, I now suffer some mild centrilobular emphysema, which makes for some shortness of breath in some situations.
I favored menthol cigs and never liked non-menthols. I wonder if flavored cigs had been banned years ago, might I have stopped smoking much earlier (or even never started) and saved myself the lung damage I now experience?
I support the banning of flavored tobacco, tobacco substitutes and cannabis in the hope that doing so will discourage some others from adopting negative habits through these products. You really don't need to drink, smoke or do drugs to enjoy life!
7
The No on E campaign was flat-out obnoxious, thinking they could drown out common sense. They earned every single Yes vote, including mine.
21
Agreed. I had given no thought to any of the ballot propositions until I started being inundated by flyers for Prop H. I was truly incensed and insulted that a tobacco thought the voters would be duped by appeals to individual autonomy, as if we aren't smart enough to see straight through to their siren call to gain recruits to their death culture.
Years ago I recall an heir to the RJ Reynolds renounced his inheritence calling it blood money. All involved in the making and distribution of tobacco products have blood on their hands.
7
I meant Prop E, not Prop H
This is a battle between Big Pharma and the upstart vapor industry. Nicotine replacement products are a $2 billion market. Vapor products are cutting into those profits. Look behind the “save the children” fronts and you will find Big Pharma.
7
If the "upstart vapor industry" weren't trying so hard to lure kids and teenagers with Unicorn Milk and other fruity flavors with adolescent themes, and succeeding at it, they wouldn't be facing this ban. No self-respecting adult would buy Bubble Gang O.G. Bubba watermelon bubble gum-flavored liquid nicotine (as pictured in the article). They are marketing to kids, and you know it.
5
Amen.
All one can do with this measure is laugh. A town worried about “gateway” tobacco use seems to care little about the many and varied forms and flavors of gateway pot available through Cookies, Cannabis Express or so many other “legal” dope peddlers. A town obsessed with the “R” war on science in turn devours misinformation from science-sluts armed with the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, not least on vape use by children (anecdote and latitude, if not outright hysteria) but more ridiculously on the addictive properties of menthol! (I suppose Cookies should remove menthol pot, if this be the case, and we should all lock up the Vick’s in case people start eating it in the aisles of Walgreen and CVS). Here we have a town choking in the skunk stench of marijuana yet our greatest obsession is with expunging the smell of an old geezer’s black shag tobacco in the late night fog. I won’t even get started with the moronic ads depicting smoke traveling two hundred feet upward, through a grate in the floor and directly into the nostrils of a sleeping infant! I suppose it better if pot, then the infant will be happy, never get cancer, get rich and live forever. As it happens, I live in a smoke free building and that means, no pot for my neighbors.
3
Here's one for you: corporations never act ethically on their own. If the do so, they are always forced to do so. That's why an unfettered free market is inconsistent with liberty and happiness.
Don't get me wrong! I think free markets are by far the best economic system. Planned economies are ridiculous. But checks and balances are critical to constrain the destructive urges of highly concentrated capital. Just like checks and balances are critical to constrain the destructive urges of highly concentrated political power.
The latter truth was self-evident to the Framers. But to our eternal chagrin, the former truth was not self-evident. The Framers could not imagine the amount of wealth controlled by today's transnational corporations, and so didn't account for their radically distorting influence.
8
So much for the "new" tobacco industry. The campaign they waged was no different from the purchased "scientific studies" of the 1950s, and 1960s. I am amazed that the tobacco giants still earn billions in profits, so it should not be a surprise that they look upon middle schoolers and freshmen (and freshwomen) in high schools for another generation (a shortened generation to be sure since tobacco cuts off years of lifespan) to keep the coffers full. I am still waiting for a ban on tobacco all together. It would pass here. The ads comparing the ban to Prohibition were laughable, although the robocalls were not. Even a city as troubled as SF could still step up and win one for the people.
30
The "purchased 'scientific studies' of the 1950s, and 1960s" as you imagine them did not exist. This is purely from decades of media lies.
In fact, tobacco companies funded work that had nothing to do with smoking. And they have never to this day objected to flagrant anti-smoker scientific fraud, which falsely blames smoking for diseases caused by infection.
1
Big news and good for the voters of san francisco county. in the 80's Joe camel was the nemesis for parents. well Joe is gone and soon menthol smokes are going to be hard to find.
when a little under 20% of the money the right coalition beat 12 million dollars. that tells everyone times are changing. i do not see many kids vaping or smoking any more. tobacco use dies not do much good for people. the bay area is looking at the future and this vote result shows it. 2 years back another bay area city was victorious in beating big SODA. so yes the bay area will start to set an example and other communities will follow suit.
11
"...a new ban on the selling of flavored tobacco products, including vaping products packaged as candies and juice boxes, and menthol cigarettes."
please note that nicotine liquid/vapor is not a tobacco product; it is a nicotine product. as the article implies, nicotine vaporizers do not combust the associated liquid. menthol cigarettes, however, are a tobacco product and are combusted.
also note that in california and a few other states, sales and purchases of tobacco products and nicotine liquid are prohibited for those under 21 years old. a few other states (and countries) prohibit sales/purchases for those under 19 years old. therefore, the ban might not have much impact for the intended population.
7
Unless you are talking about synthetic nicotine, which is still somewhat uncommon and expensive, nicotine is derived from tobacco.
1
Nicotine is the addictive substance in both. And age bans have never worked for other products, so why expect this to? You know what will work? If it's not on the shelves at all.
In passing, would a self-respecting 20-something actually use this product in anything other than an ironic tone?
This story neglects to mention that flavored nicotine vapes often are filled with other unknown untested carcinogenic additives that cause health issues like Wet Lung and basically just not healthy even if in the scheme of things they are healthier than smoking. Regardless, corporations should be held accountable for the products they make and if alluringly packaged as safe should be truly safe or have a huge warning sign of the risks.
18
The tobacco companies never learn. Big tobacco was sued and lost, resulting in a gargantuan payout to smokers. Now they're trying to lure young people, with tobacco disguised as bubble gum. Disgusting!
15
Tobacco company executives are NO difference than Mexican and Colombian drug lords. I don't know how people can go home at night and sleep knowing that they make a living by killing other people.
48
You're right Jay, except for one technicality.
Tobacco company executives decided to formally incorporate before poisoning society.
10
I use tobacco flavored vaping products and the store owner where I purchase them said the legal age to sell these products in NYS is 21 years of age. The owner told me that if he sells them to a minor he could lose his license. That said, these "flavored" products will do nothing but entice minors to use them. I use the products to wean myself off of nicotine and they work. Any former smoker who uses the flavored products will not get rid of their nicotine addiction. They will just continue to substitute vaping for smoking.
11
I have seen a lot of young people using these products here and in Canada as well. They are selling them poison. And if small convenience stores are losing business, tough luck find other products to sell. Stop killing our youth. Their job is not to keep you in business , their is job is to become healthy citizens who are going to be running and managing the country. That is the most pathetic argument I heard, to keep these poisons on the market.
53
"Stop killing our youth" - that is the grotesque distortion of an irrational fanatic. No sane person thinks like that. It's opioids that are killing so many young people, not vaping or even smoking.
1
Lets pass a law like this in New York City!!
29
Yes, and be ready for the fight. If the $12M spent in SF is accurate, that's about $30 per registered voter on one issue.
2
While their at it, why not ban alcohol flavoured like candy too? There is Jolly Rancher, Fireball and bubble gum flavoured booze.
Get 'em hooked while they're young!
18
As is, you have to be 21 to legally purchase any tobacco products in San Francisco. All Prop E does is discriminate against adults of color who enjoy flavored tobacco products. I'm sick of all these "it's about the children" mentions. If you have kids, it's your job as parent to monitor what they're consuming. Prop E takes the notion of "nanny state" into overdrive.
14
So, Steve, you expect a parent to be with their child 24/7 to prevent them from buying flavored tobacco products?
14
No, but there are many adults who enjoy these products on an occasional basis, and banning them is over-reaching.
Yes, like they should know if there kids are buying drugs and alcohol. It's not my job to keep an eye on your kid. It's yours alone.
Vapes flavored with unicorn milk? My goodness, from where do they source that? I certainly haven't seen it on the shelves at Safeway, Whole Foods or Trader Joe's.
13
"Vapes flavored with unicorn milk?"
It's basically strawberries and cream. (per Google searches)
"I certainly haven't seen it on the shelves at Safeway, Whole Foods or Trader Joe's."
According to a well-known coffee seller's web site: "unicorns have been popping up in social media with shimmering unicorn-themed food and drinks."
Give me a break. No one puts a gun to your head and makes you smoke (or vape, or chew tobacco). No one forces you to drink alcohol, either. What's next, certain liquors are banned because they taste better than others?
Let me be clear, I live in San Francisco and I think smoking is gross. The cigarette butts on the sidewalks really bother me. But this is America and if someone wants to smoke a menthol cigarette, they have every right to.
And the small business owners are right. They are the only ones who will actually be affected by this. Anyone -- even precious under 21-year olds -- can hop on a bus and go to Daly city to buy these products.
20
So what you are saying is that this is America, and right or wrong, we have the right to do anything we want to our own bodies. So should we stop trying to prevent suicide? I mean this is my body if I want to commit suicide I should be able to....or would you try to stop a loved one?
So why can't we try to stop children from unknowingly hurting themselves. Why not help adults for that matter...many need it.
Lets try to put some regulations in place that make it tougher for children to go down the wrong path. For many youth is a difficult time - why not help make it a little easier for the odds to be in their favor. I assure you business owners will survive - they will not be closing their doors because they can no longer sell vaping products.
And, for this argument anyway, nobody is talking about banning cigarettes - unfortunately you are still going to be bothered by those gross cigarette butts.
3
And advertising and packaging have no effect on what young people buy. Right. Give ME a break.
1
Hi Nadia -- by any chance do you have children? I would be surprised that any parent would think these products are a "good thing." I have in the past year since kids using/buying these products and was horrified that companies and stores pedal this kind of stuff so clearly targeted at kids.
2
It's a disgrace that such products even exist. But Capitalism is all about maximizing profit...to ruin the health of the people who buy its products. And the U.S. health care system is all about maximizing profit...trying to fix the health of those whose health has been ruined.
35
That packaging is gross. Corporations should know better. Packaging aimed more obviously at grownups could have avoided this whole issue. They shot themselves in the foot.
41
So will they also make flavored alcohol illegal?
After 42 years of smoking and multiple attempts to quit using all of the 'approved' methods I quit, easily, within 2 weeks of starting vaping 4 1/2 years ago, and I haven't wanted a cigarette since. I'm not personally a fan of the candy flavors, I prefer teas or fruits, but I have 3 different devices, each with a different flavor within reach right now.
The flavors are a strong part of making vaping more appealing than smoking, and most of the adult vapers I know on an internet forum with thousands of members consider the choices in flavors a major part of how they quit smoking.
The interesting thing about those 'gateway to smoking' studies is that they are based on data that says that more teenagers are vaping now, but also that far fewer teenagers are smoking. The same data can be used just as well to say that vaping is diverting young people from smoking.
For actual research about the health effects and ability to help with smoking cessation look to Europe and Britain.
29
Sky-is-falling claims aside, flavored alcohol products have been removed from the market for targeting underage drinkers. See bans on Four Loko and other "energy drinks" marketed to under-21 drinkers, for instance.
12
And then there's this growing body of research: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/opinion/formaldehyde-diacetyl-e-cigs....
Frankly, vaping hasn't been around long enough to produce the sheer volume of studies as have been conducted on traditional tobacco consumption methods, but what we're finding is that (a) it's not a "harmless" alternative to smoking, and (b) those "choices in flavors" actually contain some pretty harmful substances—even when nicotine-free—that pose plenty of risk themselves.
The present situation is remarkably similar to 2006 when RJR agreed to stop selling the Camel flavored cigarettes that were quite clearly marketed toward children (e.g., chocolate mint, "beach breezer," etc.). Their marketing campaign back then included brightly colored advertisements and "scratch and sniff" postcards. Make no mistake: They know how easy it is to develop a loyal customer base when the customer gets hooked on a particular product as a child. Children aren't necessarily the most media literate demographic group in the first place, and most kids also don't read public health research reports that highlight the dangers (both short- and long-term) that vaping likely causes.
Regardless, I promise you: You'll be just fine without your tea, fruit, and candy e-cig flavors. This decision is about protecting children, not about restricting your liberties.
11
So, you quit smoking and have been vaping for over 4 years? Sounds like you switched from one poison to another. One addiction to another. 3 vaping devices? You are hooked bro.
20
Why is it that California is so ready to go to battle against Trump when he threatens their liberties, but has no problem curtailing the liberties of it's own people?
I am 100% for actions being taken to prevent children/minors from smoking and vaping, but not at the expense of an adult's freedom to choose. Here, where I live, you can't even walk into a vape shop unless you are 21 or older, not even if you are accompanied by a parent. I approve of that, wholeheartedly, along with other measures my state has taken to curtail use by minors, without taking freedoms away from adults.
20
It's really more about protecting the citizenry from abusive corporations. The packaging in question is undoubtedly aimed at children, and those companies should have known better. If they'd created packaging more targetted at grownups, this issue would never have arisen. They shot themselves in the foot. it's sending a message to corporations to stay in line or get smacked down hard.
As for Trump, he's just following the dictates of greedy corporate cronies, so why wouldn't we also fight him? Trump has nothing to do with "personal freedom," he's just selling us out like all the corrupt politicians.
57
So, restricting flavored tobacco and vaping products (they're different, you know) is really about fighting Trump?? That's a big leap you're making there.
Nerdage - I would rather protect myself (or have parents actually pay attention to what their kids are doing) than have yet more government overreach in the market.
I am no fan of tobacco, but I have trouble reconciling this with the availability, and perhaps even more variety of similar cannabis products.
21
Nicotine is more addictive and harmful than anything in cannabis. I personally don't like inhaling any burning leaves into my lungs - that can't be good for you - but cannabis also comes in edible format, which seems safer and is definitey yummier.
22
David of Short Hills, Think about the very physically addictive nature of nicotine versus the not addictive nature of cannabis products. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances used by humans. The addiction of children to nicotine is highly profitable for tobacco companies and very expensive for society. The legalization of cannabis is more in response to the cost of law enforcement on the users, sellers, growers and society. The two substances are not very comparable.
36
I do not disagree with you, but I personally know of two cases of children who ate cannabis gummy bears and chocolates because they looked liked candy, and ended up in the ER where the parents were told this is common. Shame on the adults for leaving them out, but if the products did not look like they do with enticing packaging, these episodes probably would not have occurred. The point is that the regs. should be universal: no potentially harmful substance should be sold in the form of candy.
3
“'Anchor products allow us to stay competitive to big-box stores, and we will lose regular customers that keep our doors open,' said Miriam Zouzounis. . ."
If you need to sell death to stay in business, we want you belly up.
128
Selling vaping products is hardly selling death. For longtime tobacco smokers, it might be selling LIFE. NICOTINE DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. It’s the tars and many additives in cigarettes that lead to cancer deaths.
I really wish folks (including journalists) would stop equating vaping with smoking. They are very different things which share little in common , other than nicotine. And one of them may very well supplant the other one eventually, saving countless lives in the process. But only if anti-tobacco hype and uninformed moralizing don’t succeed in banning it. Ask the British Medical Assn. about its possibilities for saving lives.
2
The tobacco company ads pushing the "no" vote were shameless. Vape pens with fruit flavors and shaped like USB drives — to hide and charge them — was the last straw. This referendum went from a "choice" issue to addressing a public health crisis, pushing nicotine addiction for life as the "personal freedom" option. At a time when we're focused on regulatory limits on drug companies pushing opioids, we should also be looking at these flavored vape products as the gateway drug for teens, leading to a life ending with lung cancer.
131
Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as caffeine. And many studies have shown teens are NOT using vaping as a gateway to smoking. It's harm reduction, if nothing else.
12
Harm reduction is still a topic that is very much up for debate in the medical world, FYI.
Why would we want kids to become addicted to anything?
When vaping first came into play, I knew numerous adults who vaped in trying to quit smoking. These are disciplined, responsible adults, successful in life, and none of them have succeeded in quitting smokes. They vape now to augment the habit, or when a smoke isn't easily had due to surroundings. So now there's there's not only the cost of cigarets but the cost of of the juice, and the 'good' stuff isn't cheap.
I don't know what studies you refer to, but none have been large, and it's too new a trend in adolescents to tell whether it leads to later smoking or not. But again, why would you want kids introduced to an addicting product that itself will be a monkey on their back for years to come?
I was a smoker for many years before I finally managed to quit. Mom couldn't and died of emphysema. My older sis and bro have yet to be able to quit. I know how addicting nicotine is. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, let alone children. We adults are supposed to protect them.
After I see a photo of the tobacco execs, the boards, and their families all vaping, I will know its safe.
106
It is beyond imagination that the tobacco makers have been allowed to go this far. Bubble gum flavored vaping? Shameless. How do they sleep at night?
Good for California - but for other states...what is wrong with you? How can you abide this?
As a mother of a high school aged teen boy, I can tell you that vaping is rampant.
88
I am amazed when I think back to when I was growing up - I am 40 now - about the products that were marketed to us then as candy. Anyone remember "Big League Chew" bubble gum designed to look like chewing tobacco?
How about the candy cigarettes - I remember a bubble gum one that had powdered sugar "smoke" you could blow, and they were wrapped as if the sticks of gum were cigarettes.
3
They not only sleep at night, but are proud of themselves -- JUUL mentions founded by two Stanford grads at every opportunity:
https://www.juul.com/our-story
1
For sure! A generation ahead of you, I remember being five and holding my candy cigarets like the movies stars did, because most of them smoked. It was parleyed as being so attractive, even sexy back then. Doctors promoted brands in magazine ads!
As bad as that was, at least our candy was candy, not what young kids are vaping today. How many decades will go by before the tobacco industry is finally forced to stop preying on the young, once and for all? They keep finding new end runs around the laws.
I think Prop E was overwhelmingly approved *because* of the massive spending by RJR against it. Not "despite" that spending. California's political spending disclosure laws worked---voters are smart enough to know that, when they hear "major funding by RJR" at the end of every ad, no one's doing it for their own good.
77