San Francisco is indulging in another bout of virtue signalling. There’s really very little point at all in an area so small trying to ban the sale of something. America is, after all, the land of the car. Actually San Francisco’s so small you can walk out of it in under an hour. So, a ban on the local sale of e-cigarettes like Juul is not in fact going to do anything very much. Except, of course, virtue signal and also make that store you and I are going to open in Daly City massively profitable.
For, you know, that’s what people do when faced with such bans on things they want to buy. Walk or otherwise travel a mile or two and go buy them anyway. As people have been doing in both Philadelphia and Berkeley to get around the local soda taxes:[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Two San Francisco officials introduced legislation Tuesday that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes in the city until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration evaluates the effect of electronic cigarettes on public health. Supporters say if the measure is approved, it would be the first such prohibition in the country. Its chances aren’t clear. [/perfectpullquote]
This is indeed virtue signalling and no more. Looking at this map can’t see that anywhere in SF is more than an hour’s walk from the southern border of the city. Where, of course, the ban doesn’t exist. OK, OK, if you insist, 90 minutes.[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The proposed law would be the first of its kind in the US, and aims to crack down on what activists call an “epidemic” of youth e-cigarette use. City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that “Millions of children are already addicted to e-cigarettes, and millions more will follow if we don’t act.”[/perfectpullquote]
Rational people know that millions of teens start smoking real cigarettes each year. What we want to know is, in the presence of e-such, do more or fewer? The clear and obvious answer being fewer, they’re a substitute, not a complement. Thus if we want to lower deaths from nicotine byproducts we’d really be subsidising e-cigarettes. But logic, eh?[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] 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. “These companies may hide behind the veneer of harm reduction, but let’s be clear, their product is addiction,” said Mr Herrera. [/perfectpullquote]
Well, if harm is reduced, then they are indeed selling harm reduction, aren’t they?
As at the top though, given the size of San Francisco this is just a piece of virtue signalling of no great import. Those who want the stuff will be able to get it at Daly City. You know, that fine emporium we’re about to open, you and I?