San Francisco bans Menthol and flavours!

[Rob Fisher]

https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francis...n_on_the_Sale_of_Flavored_Tobacco_(June_2018)

How bloody DOF! You can smoke but not have flavours in vape juice! The world has gone mad!

 

[RynoP]

Just saw this on twitter. Dont know where this world is going to end up.

 

[RichJB]

No more menthol. I guess @Silver just crossed SanFran off his list of possible emigration destinations.

The poll result shows the enormity of the battle that vaping faces. Almost 70% voted in favour of the ban. That would be the 70% of the populace who are non-smokers. They don't use nicotine or use flavours in nicotine so it's no skin off their nose if flavours get banned. So it's an easy win for any politician. They know that opposing nicotine will get them votes, and it's a move where they can say they are protecting kids and supporting a healthy lifestyle. That ticks all the boxes so politicians don't need to think any further about it. Votes + kids = profit.

It's also indicative of the economies of scale involved that the vaping industry/community in the US struggled to raise $250k for their lawsuit against the FDA. San Francisco Kids v Big Tobacco and Yes on Proposition E Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, the main proponents of the ban, raised over $4m in contributions just like that - in the SanFran area alone.

 

[Wimmas]

I am no expert in laws, especially not in other countries but I have my theories. The documentary "A billion lives" touches on a few good points.

The world revolves around money and vaping is interfering with "who" receives the money. Vaping is also not as regulated as cigarettes.

In SA for example there is no sin tax on vaping products as far as I am aware. So for every cigarette consumer who converts, the government loses money because the vaper now satisfies his needs with products from an industry which is non/less regulated.

The big tobacco companies lose income, and I am sure they also a big source of income for the government.

The medical industry loses money because vaping is less harmful, so for every cigarette consumer turned vaper they are less likely make money from treating the person for cancer / cigarette related illnesses.

Now excuses are used that it's entycing children and non smokers/vapers, while back at the ranch we all have a will and choice. If a child of 16 years wants to vape, they will no matter how products are displayed/regulated etc. Take alcohol consumption in minors as an example.

And, to top it all off, there is no concrete evidence thag vaping is nearly as harmful as cigarettes, so they need to look for alternative reasons to bank from vaping through regulation / baning it and getting people back on stinkies.

Just my 2c



Sent from my WAS-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

[Silver]

Thanks for the tag @RichJB

Crazy to see this and thanks for sharing @Rob Fisher

I scanned the article quickly, but I didn't see much reference to vaping - only tobacco products.
Are they referring to flavoured tobacco or also flavoured e-juice?

 

[RichJB]

@Silver, it covers juice as well. I presume that tobacco will now be the only flavour profile allowed in juice there. It won't stop vapers from ordering juice from another county. But I suppose they were going for the symbolic value of the ban.

The world revolves around money and vaping is interfering with "who" receives the money. Vaping is also not as regulated as cigarettes.

A Billion Lives will never gain traction outside vaping circles because it draws a distinction between the vaping industry and big tobacco. It's a distinction that govt and broader society don't see. This is evident in the civil society and media reaction to the SanFran ban.

Tuesday's vote ends a campaign that pitted Big Tobacco against former New York mayor and billionaire philanthropist Michael Bloomberg and public health groups.

"San Francisco's groundbreaking law stands – and will stop the tobacco industry from targeting kids, African Americans and other populations with menthol- and candy-flavored products, as the industry has done for far too long," Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids President Matthew Myers said in a statement.

In a statement, Bloomberg said the vote marks "an important step forward" for public health in San Francisco and shows the tobacco industry can be defeated, no matter how much money it spends.

A spokesman for R.J. Reynolds said the vote is a "setback" for harm reduction efforts.

Being associated with big tobacco is a millstone around vaping's neck. But it's one we will have to deal with.

 

[Rob Fisher]

 

[daniel craig]

View attachment 134651

100%

 

[lamywaby]

No more menthol. I guess @Silver just crossed SanFran off his list of possible emigration destinations.

The poll result shows the enormity of the battle that vaping faces. Almost 70% voted in favour of the ban. That would be the 70% of the populace who are non-smokers. They don't use nicotine or use flavours in nicotine so it's no skin off their nose if flavours get banned. So it's an easy win for any politician. They know that opposing nicotine will get them votes, and it's a move where they can say they are protecting kids and supporting a healthy lifestyle. That ticks all the boxes so politicians don't need to think any further about it. Votes + kids = profit.

It's also indicative of the economies of scale involved that the vaping industry/community in the US struggled to raise $250k for their lawsuit against the FDA. San Francisco Kids v Big Tobacco and Yes on Proposition E Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund through this Source, the main proponents of the ban, raised over $4m in contributions just like that - in the SanFran area alone.

I'm going to be in the Bay Area this weekend, and wanted to know if there were any vape shops there. I will be in the Union Square area so anything within a reasonable distance would be great! Thanks for the help!