San Francisco vape ban embraces harm over science

June 19, 2019

OPINION by YAËL OSSOWSKI

In an attempt to curb youth vaping, the Board of Supervisors of the city of San Francisco voted yesterday to ban all sales of vaping devices and e-cigarettes. The ban was passed unanimously and will apply to the sales and distribution of e-cigarettes once it has final approval.

The ban was counterproductive and took the approach of endorsing fear over science. The fact remains that San Francisco consumers can still buy tobacco in all forms, but they won’t be allowed to purchase vaping devices and e-cigarettes that are significantly less harmful.

This is increasing potential harm by only making tobacco legal and pushing committed former smokers and current vapors to travel outside the city to buy their vape products, or even worse, create a black market with no regulation and no oversight.

For the truck driver, waitress, or customer service employee who is addicted to nicotine and has found an alternative to smoking cigarettes in vaping products, they will now be denied that choice by the elected San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

The science is clear: vaping is 95 percent less harmful than smoking and gives adults a fighting chance to quit tobacco. Public policy should be aimed at achieving the goal of less smokers, not more.

The focus on youth access to vaping products is a question of enforcement: for that, there needs to be focus on retailers who are selling to minors illegally, not wholemeal bans that will take away the choices of law-abiding adults.

Youth vaping is a concern, but in the pursuit of reducing its likelihood, San Francisco politicians are effectively denying alternative technologies to adult smokers who want to quit. That’s a dark stain on the Golden City.

YAËL OSSOWSKI  is the Deputy Director for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC). The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe, closely monitors regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and informs and activates consumers to fight for consumer choice.


Loading...

19
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
Paso_Guy

Maybe they should ban shitting in public.


nazbol gang

Good. I’m sorry but vapers are annoying


Wildrnes

Yael Ossowski, this opinion piece is pure rubbish with no evidence to support your claims. Please stop writing. The world will thank you.

Meanwhile folks, check this out and note the science to support it:


https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-lifestyle/quit-smoking-tobacco/is-vaping-safer-than-smoking


nunsense

for years we were told we needed more fuel efficient cars, so we did. then the gas tax revenue fell and the cry was “more taxes”.


so what happens when tobacco tax revenue falls? hmm, …


mberger

San Luis should ban them too, as well as all other tobacco products.


LameCommenter

Ban them, in the land of the free and the home of the brave? No thanks; don’t dictate to others about their low impact recreational behavior, not to me nor anyone of age 18.


“Give me liberty, to smoke or vape myself to death” -Patrick Henry (paraphrased)


kayaknut

And when my health deteriorates let the taxpayers pay for all my medical issues……


FinfreAk

It is ZERO business of my servant, the government, to FORCE thee and me to spend our hard-earned money on paying for OTHER people’s medical issues. That is a job for my CHARITY, voluntarily given. What about all the people who eat stupidly and are fat, fuzzy-headed sugar-cranked burdens to society? Anyone reading who wants to ban smoking who is fat but who would refuse to let a skinny smoker dictate to them how to eat right … is a pot calling the kettle black.


nazbol gang

That’s right, as long as the child consents. I love that libertarian logic, you can justify anything


MysticOne

I have yet to figure out where to put the tobacco in my vape pen and I have been making my own flavored mct juice and building my own coils for years.


FinfreAk

San Luis should ban people like mberger telling other people how to live “right” unless mberger is prepared to live the way I think mberger should live. And I would never presume to tell someone else how to live except to say “mind your own business unless the person/victim of your ‘help’ welcomes your self-vested authority.” LIVE AND LET LIVE is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me — to worry about the plank in their own eye before taking over the removal of the splinter in mine.


shelworth

But, no matter what your age, if you want a syringe for heroine, they will give you one…


kayaknut

And a place to “safely”??? inject yourself…….


copperhead

I always question when someone says “the science is clear” but does not reference any science. Johns Hopkins begs to differ.


ActaNonVerba

1.) There is no scientific proof that supports the belief that “vaping is 95 percent less harmful than smoking.” That’s just silly.


2.) Public policy should be aimed at achieving the goal of fewer people being addicted to nicotine.


3.) If you’re that addicted to vaping and live in the city, just drive to Oakland or Daly City to cop your fix.


4.) I’ve never seen a healthy-looking vaper. Not ever.


FinfreAk

Public policy should be HANDS OFF unless it involves assault, fraud, robbery, kidnapping, theft, murder, or breaking of contract.


A “public policy” aimed at manipulating people as to how they relate to an ancient thing like tobacco makes government the MASTER of thee and me. That is WRONG and will lead to slavery.


If we want to remain free, the government had better remain our SERVANT.


Rambunctious

Ban vapes?…hey San Francisco!…how about banning defecating and urinating in the streets…how about banning heroin use on the streets? and panhandling and open drug sales and squatting on the streets…..?…vaping?…that is what has gotten their goat?….


nazbol gang

Right, and then there’s the fact that San Francisco streets are under a layer of feces. I’ve never liked San Francisco. It’s a bit to “vibrant” for my tastes.