HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 11:12 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
It would motivate people to simply stock up when they're out and about and already in Daly City or Oakland for other reasons. Smokers who live in proximity to an Indian reservation will load up on cartons of cigarettes when they're in the area.
I go "out and about" every day and I haven't been to Oakland or Daly City in years except passing through to get somewhere much farther away (like LA or Arizona). I don't think the typical San Franciscan wanders much to those places. Maybe to Berkeley . . . . Leaving the city is mostly not necessary and the traffic is a horror so shopping for vaping equipment will be doable but a useless pain in the butt.

To digress . . . People shouldn't forget that Juul Labs is a $38 billion (market cap) company founded and headquartered in San Francisco. This is like murdering your children. One wonders why they would stay. Along with the proposed "IPO tax" and other recent ideas of the governing overlords, how can the golden egg-laying goose survive?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 12:22 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
C'mon guys, read the article. It's not a permanent ban.
Yeah, just a 3-10 year ban lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 1:31 AM
floor23 floor23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 52
I don't see what the big deal is over this is. It's San Francisco which has been famous for its wacky/foolish left-leaning politics long before many of us were born.

I wonder why they didn't just raise taxes on vapes instead. I'm sure SF needs the money and it would have probably scored the same amount of political brownie points with people opposed to e-cig companies like JUUL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 2:16 AM
xzmattzx's Avatar
xzmattzx xzmattzx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 5,111
San Francisco joins the rural South in banning legal products because a few select people are irresponsible with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 2:29 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by floor23 View Post
I'm sure SF needs the money.
SF Has a balanced city/county budget of $12.3 billion this year (for about 885,000 people). That's more than at least 13 states. It's way more than any state on a per capita basis. I don't think they "need the money". This isn't about money. It's about keeping adults from doing things those in government don't want them to do because they are incapable of keeping kids from doing it too. Why smoking marijuana is such an obvious exception is curious--the kids are also doing that. Is it because the Supervisors are all old Hippies. Well, actually, they mostly are too young for that. But it's clearly about control.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 2:35 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Yeah, just a 3-10 year ban lol
Don't bet on it. As long as kids can get hold of vaping equipment, they will try to keep it out of the hands of anyone and everyone. The language in this law that MIGHT make it temporary is itself just temporary--until they decide they need to make it permanent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 2:40 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,335
It's relatively easy to pass something against a relatively small group of people, especially when they're highly annoying and possibly damaging to other people.

And let's be honest: vapers aren't exact a scary or daunting demographic on average, in any sense of the word.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 2:51 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
It's relatively easy to pass something against a relatively small group of people, especially when they're highly annoying and possibly damaging to other people.

And let's be honest: vapers aren't exact a scary or daunting demographic on average, in any sense of the word.
The group most upset by this are not vapers who, as JManc says, can make a trip to Daly City or Oakland or Berkeley and get what they want. It's the city's "bodega" (corner market) owners, along with their vape shop colleagues, a mostly immigrant population having some sympathy from politicans in this "sanctuary" city whose sales are heavily dependent on alcohol and now vaping sales.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 4:31 AM
floor23 floor23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
SF Has a balanced city/county budget of $12.3 billion this year (for about 885,000 people). That's more than at least 13 states. It's way more than any state on a per capita basis. I don't think they "need the money". This isn't about money. It's about keeping adults from doing things those in government don't want them to do because they are incapable of keeping kids from doing it too. Why smoking marijuana is such an obvious exception is curious--the kids are also doing that. Is it because the Supervisors are all old Hippies. Well, actually, they mostly are too young for that. But it's clearly about control.
Of course SF has a balanced budget, all local governments are required by law to have a balanced budget. SF will definitely need more tax revenue(like all local governments do) over the years as demands for public services increase. That $12.3B budget didn't just grow out of nowhere.

Obviously the amount of revenue e-cigs/vapes generate is insignificant to the overall budget, but it just comes across as petty to temporarily ban a product which some businesses in the city depend on to keep afloat. It appears city leaders haven't learned much from the history of tobacco and marijuana usage. While tobacco usage has decreased over the decades due to higher taxes and health education, marijuana usage has grown due to being on the black market. I'm sure most Juul users would rather pay the 20-30% tax as opposed to taking a trip outside of SF. Instead SF goes with a temporary ban which doesn't solve the perceived problem, generates $0 in tax revenue, screws over some small-business owners, screws over Juul which is headquartered in SF, and inconveniences the users of the product.

As i mentioned earlier, vaping is very insignificant to the overall SF economy, but this motion to temporarily just comes across as a complete waste of time. If county leaders really cared about public health they would try to do more about homelessness which are a far bigger risk to public health and the SF economy (tourism mostly).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 6:26 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,887
^^My obvious point wasn't that budget was balanced but that the budget is huge, befitting any socialist government, and they don't have to borrow any money fund it (in case anyone suspected that) because the city has a great economy and the have oodles of money coming in.

This banning of vaping has nothing to do with money. It's pure control.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 4:26 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Yeah, just a 3-10 year ban lol
Because the FDA won't do its job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 3:24 PM
dropdeaded209's Avatar
dropdeaded209 dropdeaded209 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Berlin
Posts: 307
the United States sounds like a really awful place to live!
__________________
Director of Starship Chicago and The Absent Column

"Helmut Jahn has never suffered a failure of nerve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 10:50 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropdeaded209 View Post
the United States sounds like a really awful place to live!
Oh man it sure is! Especially here in US-occupied California!
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 11:44 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,758
You'd like to give California back to the Native Americans?

I wouldn't be against it.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.