San Francisco Moves To Ban E-Cigarettes Until Health Effects Known (bbc.com) 228
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Officials in San Francisco have proposed a new law to ban e-cigarette sales until their health effects are evaluated by the U.S. government. The law appears to be the first of its kind in the U.S. and seeks to curb a rising usage by young people. Critics, however, say it will make it harder for people to kick addiction. A second city law would bar making, selling or distributing tobacco on city property and is aimed at an e-cigarette firm renting on Pier 70. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its proposed guidelines, giving companies until 2021 to apply to have their e-cigarette products evaluated. A deadline had initially been set for August 2018, but the agency later said more preparation time was needed. San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera, one of the co-authors of the bill, which is yet to be approved, said reviews should have been done before they were sold. Juul, one of the most popular U.S. e-cigarette firms, rents space on Pier 70. It said in a statement: "This proposed legislation begs the question -- why would the city be comfortable with combustible cigarettes being on shelves when we know they kill more than 480,000 Americans per year?"
But Pot is fine (Score:2, Insightful)
So...have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government? Does anyone else find it interesting that the cities and states that are the most friendly to legalized pot also seem to be the most hostile to cigarettes (and e-cigs now)? I'm pretty sure that intentionally sucking the smoke from burned plants of any kind isn't very good for you. The libertarian in me doesn't give a crap about either. One might come to the conclusion that they are OK legalizing things that they personally like, an
Re: But Pot is fine (Score:2)
So...have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government?
Lots and lots and lots of bogus, paid-for "studies" intended to show how terribly bad it is... do those count??
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you mean by "fully". The current studies point to it being pretty safe unless you burn it and inhale the smoke. And, the natural study of "all these people who smoke a shitload of pot" seems to show it does not have teh same cancer risk as cigarettes.
Better than cigarettes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't smoke at all, but my 24-year-old son did, until e-cigarettes became popular.
First, no tar. And no stench.
I'd a lot rather he puff on those candy things than the old-fashioned smoky ones.
Would it be better if he didn't do any of them? Yes. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the e-cigs any day.
Re: (Score:2)
But if I had to choose, I'd choose the e-cigs any day.
e-cigs are so much better for you than cigarettes that everyone should switch to them immediately. For reasons you mentioned, like tar.
If someone wants to quit, then quit later, but switch to e-cigs now.
Re:Better than cigarettes! (Score:4, Informative)
When I read the headline I assumed they just meant banning their use in public spaces, like cigarettes, but no... They actually want to ban them completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention to the flavors he uses (or get him to do it)! Some of them can cause pretty shitty consequences, like popcorn lung. I mean, if he's willing to go to his second or third favorite flavor (assuming he likes a dangerous one), he can avoid some big risk factors.
Re: (Score:2)
If only I had that much influence over my 24-year-old!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gateway? My son was already smoking cigarettes. He switched to vaping. I think that's a good move. Quitting would be even better, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Make e-cigs illegal, but pot legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that make sense?
Re: (Score:3)
How does that make sense?
Even less sense: Make e-cigs illegal, but normal cigarettes legal, no need to talk about pot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People have smoked pot for ages (Score:2)
I still think it's a terrible idea, but I oppose prohibition across the board. Legal, taxed and regulated.
Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
It cleaer to me.... (Score:2)
...everything in California causes cancer, read the labels.... exceptions are the things that probably will kill you and many of these things don't have labels. Can you name any of these?
Re: (Score:2)
As has this comment.
Re: It cleaer to me.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ban it, tax it (Score:2)
Banning is not the answer. Steer people in the direction you want by making it hurt a little. And at the same time make them pay the bulk of the consequences by collecting the tax and using those funds accordingly.
Stupid government doesn't learn from the past so they jump to "no" and just drive it underground so crooks can profit. Then government faces the burden of cost fighting crime and the consequences of product X.
Fully researched? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nice wataboutism. Yes, they shouldn't make any other laws and drop everything until they've addressed those issues.
Re: (Score:2)
is this just the old school tobacco lobby at work?
Hard to tell if it's that, or just some real morons. Are e-cigarettes safe? Probably not, but we know full well that cigarettes aren't safe by any definition. So they want to ban something that, while probably harmful to some degree, is likely to be less harmful than the old style cigarettes? It's not uncommon for people to be more afraid of unknown potential risks than known proven dangers, but you'd hope for better from lawmakers.
Either they didn't spend more than five seconds thinking this out (whic
Re: (Score:2)
And this conclusion is based on what, exactly?
Is there any science at all that indicates they're unsafe? Or is it just that word "cigarette" that makes them unsafe?
Re: (Score:2)
And this conclusion is based on what, exactly?
Is there any science at all that indicates they're unsafe? Or is it just that word "cigarette" that makes them unsafe?
You're still inhaling smoke, which is never good for your lungs. Typical users are also still getting a dose of nicotine.
As the parent poster said, though, e-cigarettes are still much less dangerous than regular cigarettes.
Are cigarette sales banned? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Question about e-cigs: are they treated just the same as tobacco? For example, most places and I presume SF you can't light up tobacco anywhere you like due to second hand smoke, and there are special smoking areas.
Does the same rule apply to e-cigs? Many e-cig users don't want to mix with tobacco users for the same reasons that non-smokers don't.
What I'm getting at is how equivalent the two are. Is second hand e-cig smoke an issue because they can be used in any public space, unlike tobacco?
Re: (Score:2)
Except cigarettes aren't cool, and most teens won't smoke them. E-Cigarettes are cool and most teens will. So, banning them makes sense. Or raising the limit on them to 30 (so adults can quit tobacco) makes sense.
Hell, the preliminary studies show that one of the flavors (I think Bubble Gum) may cause all kinds of nasty side-effects, which may be worse than cigarettes. And a lot of the cardio problems w
Re: (Score:2)
I know, expecting a government to
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the ideal would be to ban cigarettes and e-cigarettes from people who currently do not smoke, while allowing them for people who do. This would prevent many new people from taking up the habit while avoiding a prohibition like smuggling operation.
Banning a cool version and allowing an uncool version is fairly close to that.
See, your issue is you say "Better that person X uses an e-cigarette than smokes a cigarette". And I'm saying better "N+X, X much less than Z, smoke cigarettes and 0 people sm
Re: (Score:2)
A ban one but not the other makes no sense if you are trying to run a nanny sate. However, it makes perfect sense if you are trying to make markets work. A requirement of an efficient market is information about costs and utilities. Knowing the health effects of ordinary cigarettes allows those effects to be priced in. Without knowledge of the effects of e-cigarettes, the market cannot achieve equilibrium.
Cigarettes cause fires (Score:2)
Look at the Objective Evidence (Score:2)
For cigarettes the picture looks much, much worse. The average ANNUAL rate of house fires caused by smoking is 18,100 each year in the US [nfpa.org] which causes on average 590 deaths each year and 1,130 injuries. So the annual rate o
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me kiddies: Legal, Taxed and Regulated.
Better yet, how about just "legal"?
I see no need to tax it beyond what any retail item is taxed. Or regulated beyond what the law already allows, in that if it turns out to have been harmful then the seller is liable civilly, and if it turns out to have been harmful and the seller knew (or used ingredients that the seller ought to have known) were harmful then they are liable criminally. Until then, caveat emptor.
Almost all vape "juice" made in North America is already limited to nicotine and ingredients
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hard to argue that vape juice is harmful when it is nothing more than what you might get coming off a cake that's baking in your oven
How many cakes do you bake in a given day, though ?
Re: Oh for fucks sake, no. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the old school tobacco lobby loves ecigs. And sells the crap out of them. Smoking in teens kept going down and down, and this is a way for them to seem "healthy" and recapture that market.
Re: (Score:2)
In many civilised countries vaping is under the same regulations as smoking and rightly so, it emits bad vapours and to kids makes it look like smoking is acceptable behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Foul smelling, potentially with toxins. Not as bad as with raw smoke, but there's still at least nicotine. Common sense says vape outside and not indoors by your coworkers or family. If you vape because you're trying to stop smoking, then it should be familiar to not get your nicotine hit inside. If you vape because you think it's cool, then you need to learn that it just makes you look like a hipster dork.
Re:Oh for fucks sake, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes you may still be coughing as you vape, but you already did the damage with your years of smoking. What you aren't doing is continuing to add more tar and other tobacco residues to your lungs.
You can discretely vape indoors. Don't use strongly flavored juices. I've never vaped or smoked but worked with those who do both. Smokers I can smell from 10 feet away even though they only smoke outside on their breaks. I've had a co-worker vaping in the cubical next to me and the only reason I knew he was doing it was because I saw him doing it. I never smelled it.
Now that you've kicked the tobacco, start buying juices with slightly less nicotine. Get used to that level and then step down again. That co-worker in the cubical next to me. No longer vapes. Like you he smoked for years. He tried to stop a few times but never with any luck because of the nicotine addiction. But after switching to vaping he was able to start reducing his nicotine concentration and got it down to zero. After a few weeks of that, one day he realized he'd forgotten his e-cig. He'd never forgotten his cigs or e-cig before but then when he thought about it he realized he'd been using it less and less as he had no addiction to satisfy. He wasn't quite done then but shortly did put the e-cig away and hasn't needed it since.
I've seen this time and again. And I'll say it time and again, I'd rather work surrounded by people actively vaping then near someone who reeks of his smokes from his last break two hours ago.
Vaping might have some risk depending on what the juice is made of. But it is vastly safer and preferable to tobacco or weed.
Re:Juul is a pusher to children (Score:5, Interesting)
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them? No? I thought so. Your argument is weak and so is theirs.
Re:Juul is a pusher to children (Score:5, Informative)
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol, and there are scientific studies connecting e-cig availability to higher nicotine addiction among young people. No such connection has been shown between addiction and candy flavored booze. So they are not comparable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
California already has the 2nd lowest rate of tobacco smoking, behind only Utah.
Colorado and Washington are well below average.
West Virginia and Kentucky are the worst.
Cigarette smoking by state [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The sample size for California was only 8717 people out of over 40 million.
That sample size is plenty big enough. The sample size needed for statistical significance is independent of the population size.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
Well, you still need cigs to roll your joints.
Re: Juul is a pusher to children (Score:2)
Why would you want to ruin you joint by adding tobacco?
Re: (Score:3)
Thats apparently a UK/Europe thing and apparently they do it in Canada also. One of the guys that works for me told me he mixes tobacco with his weed.. Which I thought was crazy. And when I was younger I knew some people from the UK that did the same.
Re: (Score:2)
That's insanity. I couldn't even imagine man. At least you got your head on strait lol. My canadian buddy said he does it to stretch it out? Idk how that works, and I was young when I knew the english couple and didn't think to ask. They would still smoke strait weed with the rest of us so I guess its just a cultural thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
Well, you still need cigs to roll your joints.
You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes. Additionally you can cook the vape products into food, making THC/CBD more effective. Great for painkillers, much better than opiates. I had an Achilles tendon surgery and the doctor suggested this was a better option than from liver failure from too many other types of pain killers. Same with spinal surgery recovery.
As for nicotine a legitimate reason for ingesting it is to r
Re: Juul is a pusher to children (Score:2)
You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes.
While the vast majority of potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke are caused by the hundreds of fucked-up additives, the "tar" from burning weed has been shown to have beneficial properties. Perhaps it's not best administered through the lungs... but there's still no comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes.
While the vast majority of potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke are caused by the hundreds of fucked-up additives,
Indeed.
the "tar" from burning weed has been shown to have beneficial properties. Perhaps it's not best administered through the lungs... but there's still no comparison.
I've heard that it opens up the bronchial tubes. I was a nurse that told me they see a lot of throat cancer patients who used to smoke weed. That was the main reason I went vape, to remove the biggest concern.
Re: Juul is a pusher to children (Score:2)
Re:Juul is a pusher to children (Score:4, Interesting)
I was quite surprised that I couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful. The harm in addiction could be little more than economical. I always assumed that a large component of what makes smoking cigarettes directly harmful was the nicotine.
Of course if the nicotine keeps you inhaling all the other combustion chemicals then that makes it quite harmful in an indirect manner.
I was even more surprised to find that there is a good argument to say the same about heroin :https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences
Re: Juul is a pusher to children (Score:2)
I always assumed that a large component of what makes smoking cigarettes directly harmful was the nicotine.
The nicotine is bad; the additives are far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
30 seconds of googling revealed this [nih.gov]. To save you the reading,
Several lines of evidence indicate that nicotine may contribute to the development of cancer. Evidence from experimental in vitro studies on cell cultures, in vivo studies on rodents as well as studies on humans inclusive of epidemiological studies indicate that nicotine itself, independent of other tobacco constituents, may stimulate a number of effects of importance in cancer development (5, 6).
BTW, I was a smoker for 20 years and loved every second of it. If I thought for a minute that any form of nicotine wasn't terrible for my health, I would be on it again in a heartbeat.
Re: (Score:2)
I did mean 'significantly'. Lots of things have unhealthy effects depending on dosage and we find our way through them. Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer and it plays a large role in heart disease. If nicotine by itself is 20 times less dangerous then that still means something but it doesn't stand out in the crowd anymore and then you have to be really health conscious to start avoiding it (like me I guess). My assumption was that the burning products of tobacco caused lung cancer and the nicotine
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a result of impact of isolated nicotine which is anywhere near the effect of smoking
Re: (Score:2)
This is bullshit. I am trying to distinguish nicotine from smoking. All the proof of health hazard which I found were done by testing with smoke. That is entirely sensible by itself in a time when nicotine is inhaled as smoke. But it also means there aren't necessarily any serious tests for health effects of nicotine without the smoke . And that was what I was searching for, and you aren't. Search results for damaging effect of nicotine will generally yield the results for smoking.
This doesn't mean nicotine
Re: (Score:2)
How is this relevant for figuring out the health effects of getting your nicotine fix without inhaling burned tobacco?
Re: (Score:3)
This is a bad move. Vaping has helped many long time smokers finally escape tobacco. And many have eventually weaned their self off the nicotine as well.
I w
Re: (Score:2)
>"Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol"
So? Even if the flavoring IS attractive to minors, it probably doesn't matter- Have you seen the statistics of how many people alcohol kills- both users AND innocents? It makes no difference if you remove everything else from an alcoholic drink, as long as it has alcohol, those statistics will stay the same- alcoholism, impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, drunk driving, fights, accidents, alcohol poisoning, drug interactions, etc.
I suspect nicotine,
Re: (Score:2)
Effects of alcohol: KNOWN. Also, requires ID to show you're >=21 years of age to purchase.
Effects of E-cigarrettes: NOT CURRENTLY KNOWN. Also, you only need to be 18 -- and 18 year olds are even dumber than 21 year olds.
There, was that so hard to understand?
Also: There's already been studies showing that e-cigs and vaping serve as easy 'gateways' to smoking tobacco.
Maybe you'd get those panties of yours out of the bunc
Re: (Score:2)
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
Yes.
Oh, you were talking about marketing and targeting minors. Never mind then.
Re:Juul is a pusher to children (Score:5, Interesting)
Anti-smoking groups, who saw $Billions of expected sin tax revenues evaporate in a scented cloud of steam when cigarette smokers converted to vapes. are the real pushers here.
So what are these prohibitionists pushing now? Deprive adults of a massively safer way to consume nicotine... for the sake of the children.
And here you are claiming that only "children" like flavored vape juice when adults are the primary market.
I want to protect children, just like you, so limiting minors from purchasing them would seem to be a much more rational approach than throwing around blanket bans, like you should with smoked tobacco which is the primary source of many diseases here in America.
But, let's get back to your astro-turfy hyperbole, because it's for the children.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some moron said
Deprive adults of a massively safer way to consume nicotine.
Hardly "massively safer"...
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/first... [ucsf.edu]
From the CDC:
E-cigarettes have the potential to benefit adult smokers who are not pregnant if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products.
E-cigarettes are not safe for youth, young adults, pregnant women, or adults who do not currently use tobacco products.
While e-cigarettes have the potential to benefit some people and harm others, scientists still have a lot to learn about whether e-cigar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's great, and I hope it works out for you, but doesn't make them massively safer.
Re: Juul is a pusher to children (Score:2)
If most users report significantly decreased negative health effects, then yes that does make them safer. I'll leave discussion of the threshold for 'massively' to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
The key point is right there: "if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products."
Nobody is saying that they are completely safe. Or if they do, they're lying. From everything I've read, they *are* substantially safer than cigarettes.
That in no way says that if you don't currently smoke, you now have the green light to start. If someone IS saying that, they should be appropriately charged with false advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
A doubled risk of heart attacks (see link I provided) would argue that they aren't "massively safer", and there's plenty more study to be accomplished.
Re:Juul is a pusher to children (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is mostly right. From the 1970s on, the anti-smoking industry only grew in political influence and overall resources. I bet in the beginning they saw this as a never-ending battle. When they largely "won" with the tobacco settlements, it was like suddenly gaining access to a perpetual annuity -- limitless funding combined with political and moral authority.
The problem is, changes in smoking laws actually reduced smoking. A lot. Around here, smoking was limited early on (mid-70s) and in the late 90s/early 2000s got even more restrictive to the point where you couldn't really smoke in any public place (no bars, restaurants, etc), and many hotels, apartments, etc., followed suit. The people who didn't quit outright (still smoked in their homes or cars) certainly cut their consumption and a lot of people just kind of gave it up when there was nowhere but outside (and even that was restricted).
At this point, I think a lot of people were starting to question the resources and authority given to non-smoking and it presented an existential risk to organizations whose reason for being was going up in smoke. The introduction of vaping was a gift from heaven to the anti-smoking industry. A new lease on life. An activity that was so similar to smoking that they could easily conflate it in the minds of the public and trade on unknown risks as equivalent to known risks. Most people think they're the same thing, and there are educated adults who can't be convinced that vaping isn't smoking even when presented with the basic facts.
What's so ironic about this is the success of marijuana legalizaiton at the same time. While its possible to consume it without smoking, it's very much a smoking-centered activity and the arguments for not banning vaping are *at least* as compelling as the arguments for legalizing marijuana (if you're for legalizing marijuana because prohibition doesn't work).
It's come down to what the basic reality of what anti-smoking is -- a form of *moral advocacy*. It's about smoking being unhealthy but it's also about opposing a pleasure-inducing activity that has no moral justification. Anti-smoking forces going after vaping are either just gaming to keep their revenue and influence going, or they're pursuing a morality goal that's only shrouded in health concerns.
Wouldn't they just tax e-cigs? (Score:2)
I think it's more likely that the entrenched tobacco companies are pushing this behind the scenes while they rev up their own e-cig products. I know for a fact they've attacked small tobacco producers before (a buddy of mine smokes a pipe and he's pretty pissed at recent regulations).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you know all the "health effects" of these things? Should we believe they're harmless because the same companies who lobbied for decades saying tobacco was harmless are telling us these things are harmless too?
Fool you once, shame on them.
Fool you twice...?
Re: (Score:2)
Glycerin and propylene glycol are irritants. They're bigger irritants than tobacco smoke.
They're also well-known low-toxicity. They don't cause the damage that smoke causes. These compounds can absorb through the lungs into the blood without producing cytotoxicity in the doses consumed.
PG is actually less-toxic than VG, but VG is less-irritating. VG is natural, and PG is an organic compound.
I think the health effects are pretty well expected to be less-damaging than the health effects of huffing c
Re: (Score:2)
There is still a lot we don't know. Like what's coming off the wicks when they inevitably overheat due to most of the devices being built very cheaply/disposable.
That said, there is zero reason to ban these things. The odds off them being worse than combustion are very low.
Research could lead to less harmful products.
We definitely need the research done. It's fine to warn against using vapes and educate the public, but we don't need bans in the meantime.
It's sad to see the abstinence-only-anti-tobacco lo
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell when you've burned a wick in about a second, it tastes awful. But under normal vaping conditions, the wick doesn't ever reach a temperature where it *can* burn. You have to run your vape dry to get it to burn.
As near as I can tell, the days of cheap, easy-to-burn vapes are mostly over. Most everyone has moved onto very-low/sub-ohm atomizers that are literally in a vape juice bath that keep the wick saturated and won't allow it to burn. The coils are stainless steel, and the wick is cotton.
J
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Cost of dealing with a long-standing and ever-worsening homelessness problem that results in a literal public health crisis: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..$$$
Re: (Score:3)
> And smoking cannabis does cause cancer
What studies are you basing that on? Yes, combustion increases cancer in everything from cooking meat to petrol, but talking about levels to singularly cause cancer...I haven't seen the evidence regarding cannabis. I don't use cannaboid anything, but I'm interested.
Re: (Score:2)
> And smoking cannabis does cause cancer
What studies are you basing that on? Yes, combustion increases cancer in everything from cooking meat to petrol, but talking about levels to singularly cause cancer...I haven't seen the evidence regarding cannabis. I don't use cannaboid anything, but I'm interested.
My semi-educated guess is that smoking marijuana increases cancer risk by about the same amount that smoking regular cigarettes does. The difference is that most marijuana users aren't smoking 10 full joints every day for a couple decades. And for people that smoke one regular cigarette per week, the increase in risk is probably too small to be measurable.
Re:How will you kearn the health effects (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How will you kearn the health effects (Score:4, Informative)
Its most likely just cronyism --- that's part of why it might not seem to "make sense" - members of both Left and Right parties are cronies of (different) corporations. Some business(es) or special interests that are harmed by the e-cigs industry, are no doubt lobbying and/or pushing their bought and paid for politicians (Or friends/relatives in politics) for this sort of ban.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Actually the left has been quite supportive of e-cigs and other mild drugs such as cannabis and alcohol. Obviously housing is a major issue for the left too, with solutions like rent controls and social house building being popular. Healthcare is another major issue that the left wants to socialize, you just happen to have a different supply/demand based solution.
We can work together to find solutions to these problems if you are willing to understand the other side's position. There is a lot of misinformat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's typical leftie nonsense. They want to ban or regulate or tax everything. They don't want to solve problems like the chronic lack of housing. Or lower healthcare costs by expanding the supply of doctors. And they ignore science when it suits them too. E-cigarettes are less harmful that regular ones. Even more off - they are pro cannabis. And smoking cannabis does cause cancer. So who knows what they actually believe.
Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything.
Re: How will you kearn the health effects (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything.
Not a big historian, I see.
https://www.visitthecapitol.go... [visitthecapitol.gov]
"The movement grew in the Progressive Era..."
Re: (Score:2)
>"Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything."
Actually it is either or both. They just take different approaches. The "Left" wants to ban because they believe they (and the government) know better than the "masses" and should take away responsibility in the name of collective health. The "Right" wants to ban because of "morality".
Ironically, Classic Liberals and Conservatives would both oppose banning personal consumption because the
Re:Admin delete this (Score:2)
Re:Start with defacation on the street (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe installing some public toilets would ameliorate the situation?
Re: (Score:2)
So the deciding point is not a perfect situation, but rather a less sub-optimal one.
Got it.
Vaping should thus be legal.
Hmmmm. Maybe it's all about the asinine memes that take hold in an us vs. them manner.
Re: Subsidized drugging? (Score:2)
thus
It's a stupid, insidious habit; doesn't mean it should be illegal - thus or no thus.