|
tsa posted:Like holy poo poo if you can't think of any other reason people would be against it other than they are racist you aren't thinking very hard.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
twodot posted:The problem for me is that being racist is the least stupid reason to be against legalization. That means if I'm reading people charitably, when they say they are against legalization I should assume they are racist. You're right that not everyone is against legalization because of racism, but it's the nicest thing I can assume. Bullshit. Not caring about the issue enough to spend hours fact checking professional journalists' bullshit scare pieces is not more stupid than being scared of brown people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Bullshit. Not caring about the issue enough to spend hours fact checking professional journalists' bullshit scare pieces is not more stupid than being scared of brown people. It doesn't take hours of fact checking, any minimally reasoned analysis of the facts of prohibition is plenty to come around to legalization. Someone who is pro-prohibition for racist reasons, whether underlying and unrealized or outright and unrepentant, is at least is logically consistent regardless of whatever pejoratives you may attach to a racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It doesn't take hours of fact checking, any minimally reasoned analysis of the facts of prohibition is plenty to come around to legalization. Someone who is pro-prohibition for racist reasons, whether underlying and unrealized or outright and unrepentant, is at least is logically consistent regardless of whatever pejoratives you may attach to a racist. So it's better to be a racist than have cognitive dissonance? Get real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It doesn't take hours of fact checking, any minimally reasoned analysis of the facts of prohibition is plenty to come around to legalization. This isn't even close to true. Let's even grant that it's not terribly hard to come to the conclusion that marijuana is at least as safe as alcohol and tobacco; getting to the point of education where you can even comprehend the systemic problems that drug laws cause requires a lot of attention, a lot of reading, and probably a bit of an ideological shift for the sheltered white middle-class. My mother-in-law voted against legalization and her reasoning was "I just don't think it should be encouraged." The negative effects from keeping it illegal don't even register, she just has her internalized moral code that says "I don't do drugs, because drugs are bad," and doesn't think outside that box.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
KillHour posted:So it's better to be a racist than have cognitive dissonance? Get real. It's not better, it's less stupid. Obviously the racist has their underlying moral code all wrong, but they are approaching this topic more rationally than the hypothetical person who is pro-prohibition for entirely non-racial reasons. disheveled posted:My mother-in-law voted against legalization and her reasoning was "I just don't think it should be encouraged." The negative effects from keeping it illegal don't even register, she just has her internalized moral code that says "I don't do drugs, because drugs are bad," and doesn't think outside that box. So we're basically on the same page. If she applied even the barest minimum of reasoned thought to the topic she would be on board, but her biases are preventing that. 'Hours of fact checking' is entirely superfluous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It's not better, it's less stupid. Obviously the racist has their underlying moral code all wrong, but they are approaching this topic more rationally than the hypothetical person who is pro-prohibition for entirely non-racial reasons. What?? Racism is inherently irrational.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Does anyone have a screen capture of Kevin Sabet being called out for SAM being funded mostly by the maker of Oxy(I think?) On Twitter and the back peddling and "let's discuss this privately" that ensured? Pretty much anything to demonstrate Sabet is a lying degenerate piece of poo poo that doesn't believe his own propaganda is amusing to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
TheManWithNoName posted:What?? Racism is inherently irrational. disheveled posted:My mother-in-law voted against legalization and her reasoning was "I just don't think it should be encouraged." The negative effects from keeping it illegal don't even register, she just has her internalized moral code that says "I don't do drugs, because drugs are bad," and doesn't think outside that box.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
If people in this thread seriously think that being intellectually consistent is more important than not being racist, those people need to seriously reevaluate their priorities.  Also, having cognitive dissonance does not mean you're stupid. People do it all the time, and everyone has done it. Yes, even you. It's what lets people deal with life without breaking down and crying. Get the gently caress over it. KillHour fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:Your mother-in-law could be so stupid that she thinks criminalizing something has anything to do with whether it is encouraged or not. That would be very stupid, but it's certainly possible. Brilliant criminal justice scholarship here: "laws do literally nothing for deterrence, and you're an idiot to think otherwise." With respect to drug use, no, not much deterrence there — but getting to that requires more than the "barest minimum of reasoned thought". twodot posted:The other possibility is your next sentence: she has a moral code of "I don't care about things that happen to people who aren't me". This wouldn't be stupid, but it's not clear to me that it's substantially better morally speaking than racists. You're ascribing way more logic to this than you should. She has a worldview that prevents her from conceiving of how people can be unjustly punished by drug laws, and this has formed over 50+ years of living in majority white communities combined with (until her kids moved out) only negative personal experiences with drug users. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
How's this for a reason to be against legalization? It will result in the creation of "Big Weed"; large marijuana businesses acting unethically in an effort to expand their market. Putting addictive additives in their product, surreptitiously marketing to minors, lobbying government agencies to decease the amount of regulation they are under, etc. It'll essentially be just as lovely for the public health as Big Tobacco. I'm personally for legalization, but a lot of legalization advocates have a very pollyanna view of what we'll be getting ourselves into.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
To that I say, you think illegal dealers never market to minors, never put awful additives in, never act unethically? And of course they're under 0 regulation whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
e_angst posted:How's this for a reason to be against legalization? It will result in the creation of "Big Weed"; large marijuana businesses acting unethically in an effort to expand their market. Putting addictive additives in their product, surreptitiously marketing to minors, lobbying government agencies to decease the amount of regulation they are under, etc. It'll essentially be just as lovely for the public health as Big Tobacco. I'm personally for legalization, but a lot of legalization advocates have a very pollyanna view of what we'll be getting ourselves into. This was basically the argument I saw for voting no in Alaska. It was more or less already legal to grow for personal use here. The new legalization is for commercialization, and does basically nothing to address either the damage done by prohibition or substance abuse issues. I am also still in favor, but to call these objections stupider than racism... sheesh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Brilliant criminal justice scholarship here: "laws do literally nothing for deterrence, and you're an idiot to think otherwise." quote:You're ascribing way more logic to this than you should. She has a worldview that prevents her from conceiving of how people can be unjustly punished by drug laws, and this has formed over 50+ years of living in majority white communities combined with (until her kids moved out) only negative personal experiences with drug users. Epitope posted:This was basically the argument I saw for voting no in Alaska. It was more or less already legal to grow for personal use here. The new legalization is for commercialization, and does basically nothing to address either the damage done by prohibition or substance abuse issues. I am also still in favor, but to call these objections stupider than racism... sheesh. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:To that I say, you think illegal dealers never market to minors, never put awful additives in, never act unethically? And of course they're under 0 regulation whatsoever. Some of the people on this thread seem to. I've seen the phrase "Legal as cheetos" used, which frankly is demonstrative of some AnCap-level naivete.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Plus you're IDed at the door, not at the cash register IIRC. And a recent sting operation in Denver found that while plenty of liquor stores sold to teenagers working with the cops, not a single dispensary allowed them inside. This is the way liquor stores work in Delaware. No sales of alcohol outside of stores that specifically sell it and you're committing a crime if you're under 21 and you simply walk through the door. Is that really a bad idea for alcohol or weed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Well, I live in a place where you can buy booze from just about any convenience store or grocery store (and the legal age is 18), so I'd argue that these are draconian restrictions. As far as I'm aware our society hasn't collapsed under the weight of vice, yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:To that I say, you think illegal dealers never market to minors, never put awful additives in, never act unethically? And of course they're under 0 regulation whatsoever. The difference is that illegal dealers can't form powerful lobbying groups to make sure they can keep doing all those things. (And no, I don't think illegal dealers market to minors, because I don't think they have a marketing budget. Big Weed will definitely have a marketing budget.) Once again, I'm still in favor of legalization, but we need to be ready for what we're getting ourselves into here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
e_angst posted:The difference is that illegal dealers can't form powerful lobbying groups to make sure they can keep doing all those things. (And no, I don't think illegal dealers market to minors, because I don't think they have a marketing budget. Big Weed will definitely have a marketing budget.) At the end of the day, should "Big Weed" ever come into existence, there's the simple fact that what Big Weed is trying to sell you is about a million times less dangerous and more healthy than either Big Tobacco or Big Booze. I'm not concerned about "Big Weed."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
e_angst posted:The difference is that illegal dealers can't form powerful lobbying groups to make sure they can keep doing all those things. (And no, I don't think illegal dealers market to minors, because I don't think they have a marketing budget. Big Weed will definitely have a marketing budget.) They don't need to, since they're already doing it. Minors are already buying weed from them too. Frankly your arguments are just naive, as both alcohol and tobacco companies, despite being absolutely huge, have been completely unable to roll back the restrictions on them for years, even as other industries can claw back many. There's no reason to think Big Weed is going to get the perks of Big Oil as opposed to the restrictions on Big Tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They don't need to, since they're already doing it. Minors are already buying weed from them too. Big Tobacco pretty much had the country by the balls until the 80s and 90s. Their current state of regulation is a very recent phenomenon and the result of a huge effort from the medical community that took generations to accomplish. I don't think weed smoking a few decades post-legalization will be as ubiquitous as cigarette smoking in the 50s and 60s, but there will definitely be companies trying their best to make it that way. And they're going to rely on spreading ideas in the culture like this... How are u posted:At the end of the day, should "Big Weed" ever come into existence, there's the simple fact that what Big Weed is trying to sell you is about a million times less dangerous and more healthy than either Big Tobacco or Big Booze. I'm not concerned about "Big Weed." Which is complete bullshit. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol, but not even close to a million times less so (and it's not even in the same neighborhood as "healthy"). Criminalization and prohibition are terrible, and have resulted in great social ills. So I understand the urge to want to push against anything that would seem to prop them up. But being a blind cheerleader for legalization without acknowledging even the slightest potential negative consequence (even if those consequences are better than the consequences of prohibition) is much more naive than anything I've been saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
AYC posted:Some of the people on this thread seem to. I've seen the phrase "Legal as cheetos" used, which frankly is demonstrative of some AnCap-level naivete. That was me, and you're still Harry Anslinger if you disagree with it. How legal it should be and how legal we can get it to be are two different things. Think about all the regulations that apply to Cheetos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Big Tobacco pretty much had the country by the balls until the 80s and 90s. Their current state of regulation is a very recent phenomenon and the result of a huge effort from the medical community that took generations to accomplish. I don't think weed smoking a few decades post-legalization will be as ubiquitous as cigarette smoking in the 50s and 60s, but there will definitely be companies trying their best to make it that way. And they're going to rely on spreading ideas in the culture like this... Exactly. It's a "recent" (literally older than like 100 million americans) phenomenon but one they've been progressively losing ground on since it happened. And that's with very huge amounts of the population smoking themselves or approving of smoking to start with. Big Weed isn't going to be able to do the stuff cigarette companies got up to. They're going to be subject to at least the sorts of regulations that tobacco gets. They're probably never going to be able to, for instance, run TV ads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
e_angst posted:How's this for a reason to be against legalization? It will result in the creation of "Big Weed"; large marijuana businesses acting unethically in an effort to expand their market. Putting addictive additives in their product, surreptitiously marketing to minors, lobbying government agencies to decease the amount of regulation they are under, etc. It'll essentially be just as lovely for the public health as Big Tobacco. I'm personally for legalization, but a lot of legalization advocates have a very pollyanna view of what we'll be getting ourselves into. This overlooks the fact that there is already a 'big weed' industry who have this rather unfortunate tendency to make people disappear: quote:Mexico says 22,322 people now 'disappeared' http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/08/mexico-ups-number-missing-people-22322-201482222627872519.html The soft drink industry is a bigger threat to public health than the cannabis industry ever will be. I'd rather have Costco peddling spirits than a moonshiner with an assault rifle. The same goes for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines and opioids. Edit: Anyone who thinks we're being too hasty about legalising cannabis is an idiot (or white moderate). We have waited nearly 100 years for our god given right to imbibe a loving plant without being thrown in a cage, fired, condemned by a dumb animal or having our children taken away. I guess it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging injustices of prohibition to say "wait." I have never seen a proposal to legalize cannabis that was 'well designed' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the scourge of prohibition. KingEup fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That was me, and you're still Harry Anslinger if you disagree with it. Let me be blunt (lol): Marijuana will NEVER be "Legal as cheetos." The only way you're going to get legalized weed is by tacking on a heavy dose of regulations which, while sometimes unnecessarily restrictive, still result in marijuana being legally available and readily accessible to consumers. On that note... quote:How legal it should be and how legal we can get it to be are two different things. We've got legal weed with a system and regulatory framework that works reasonably well. Asking for more just seems greedy. e_angst posted:Criminalization and prohibition are terrible, and have resulted in great social ills. So I understand the urge to want to push against anything that would seem to prop them up. But being a blind cheerleader for legalization without acknowledging even the slightest potential negative consequence (even if those consequences are better than the consequences of prohibition) is much more naive than anything I've been saying. This.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Criminalization and prohibition are terrible, and have resulted in great social ills. So I understand the urge to want to push against anything that would seem to prop them up. But being a blind cheerleader for legalization without acknowledging even the slightest potential negative consequence (even if those consequences are better than the consequences of prohibition) is much more naive than anything I've been saying. Skateboards were prohibited in Norway for over a decade. Am I allowed to talk about or celebrate the repeal of skateboard prohibition without conceding that there may have been downsides? Do I have to start every conversation about skateboard legalisation with an acknowledgement that skateboards might be dangerous? KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Skateboards were prohibited in Norway for over a decade. Am I allowed to talk about or celebrate the repeal of skateboard prohibition without conceding that there may have been downsides? Do I have to start every conversation about skateboard legalisation with an acknowledgement that skateboards might be dangerous? Apples and oranges. Legalizing marijuana represents a major shift in US drug policy, so yes, we need to discuss it before we legalize its sale. At the very least, we want to make sure we get the right kind of legalization (there's a reason I cited Colorado and not Washington).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
This thread is pretty stupid right now. One things that's funny is california dispensaries already run tv ads. 
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
AYC posted:At the very least, we want to make sure we get the right kind of legalization (there's a reason I cited Colorado and not Washington). This still involves profiteering. WA got burned for 800k by Mark Kleiman for what he assured was the 'right kind of legalization'. AYC posted:Apples and oranges. No, it's a sound analogy. KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
AYC posted:Promoting a false dichotomy of "You support legalizing cannabis with almost no restrictions to access or production" or "You're a puritanical right-wing baby boomer who hates brown people" is counterproductive at best, and actively detrimental to the cause of legalization at worst. Is there a reason I am supposed to care? Perhaps some influential policy wonk is reading the forum and will be like "oh my god I thought these potheads were reasonable. I now oppose even measured steps towards legalization." It's good to admit to yourself what the truth is, at least. Cannabis has no negative effects on health or society. Studies to the contrary are either of poor quality or intentionally deceptive. If teenagers want to smoke it they should be able to, immediately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is there a reason I am supposed to care? Perhaps some influential policy wonk is reading the forum and will be like "oh my god I thought these potheads were reasonable. I now oppose even measured steps towards legalization." While I don't disagree with your opinions on marijuana's effects per se, I don't think society's ready for the ubiquitous use of cannabis your proposed policies would cause-not because it's dangerous, but because we're not quite there yet socially. Decades of drug war propaganda are only just beginning to be rejected, and right now, Colorado-style dispensaries are the most politically feasible way to bring legalized marijuana to the masses. Is it perfect? No. But it's ending marijuana prohibition and making purchasing the drug with point of sale transactions extremely easy, while also funding worthwhile endeavours in other branches of government. And for me, that's enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Which is complete bullshit. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol, but not even close to a million times less so (and it's not even in the same neighborhood as "healthy"). The number of lives lost to alcohol and tobacco is literally millions of times the death toll from marijuana, and that's only if you're very generous about the deaths you attribute to marijuana since it's really more of a divide by zero situation. Are there any data for healthcare costs attributable to marijuana, excluding court-mandated treatment? I'd venture that number is several orders of magnitude less than tobacco and alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is there a reason I am supposed to care? Perhaps some influential policy wonk is reading the forum and will be like "oh my god I thought these potheads were reasonable. I now oppose even measured steps towards legalization." There are changes in CB1/2 expression, both in quantity and location, through development. eCB signaling is involved in both synapse development and synaptic strength. I don't think you'll find many neurobiologists or psychiatrists who would sign off on juvenile use as "perfectly safe" at this point. An age restriction for any psychoactive drug is reasonable in light of limited evidence. It is not about appeasing policy wonks. If you make arguments that a reasonable and educated person can see as hasty or unsafe, you will lose credibility. I like D&D for learning to make arguments in real life with people who are undecided. I guess if your only purpose of posting here is to masturbate over your own posts, go wild.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
disheveled posted:There are changes in CB1/2 expression, both in quantity and location, through development. eCB signaling is involved in both synapse development and synaptic strength. I don't think you'll find many neurobiologists or psychiatrists who would sign off on juvenile use as "perfectly safe" at this point. An age restriction for any psychoactive drug is reasonable in light of limited evidence. These are the same neurobiologists and psychiatrists who think Adderall is a good solution to kids acting impulsive, right? I would argue that there is more to growing into a good adult than "synapse development and synaptic strength". For example: not getting suspended/expelled from school, not being branded a troublemaker, not getting stuck in the legal system. To me, the problem isn't "is pot safe for kids?", it's "what is the best way to ensure the safety of children?", and I don't think threatening kids with punishment if they smoke is the answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:These are the same neurobiologists and psychiatrists who think Adderall is a good solution to kids acting impulsive, right? None of that is prevented because schools can and do ban any sort of intoxicants for children in their care, even in some magical land where 14 year olds can smoke marijuana legally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
quote:It will result in the creation of "Big Weed"; large marijuana businesses acting unethically in an effort to expand their market. Putting addictive additives in their product, surreptitiously marketing to minors, lobbying government agencies to decease the amount of regulation they are under, etc. It'll essentially be just as lovely for the public health as Big Tobacco. I'm personally for legalization, but a lot of legalization advocates have a very pollyanna view of what we'll be getting ourselves into. First off, there's big business interest in keeping pot legal. The current marijuana businesses are tiny with little lobbying power; AFAIK, the biggest pot companies are still too small to be required to provide health insurance under Obamacare. On the other hand, pharmaceutical companies, prison guard unions and alcohol producers are all lobbying against marijuana legalization. Breaking alcohol's legal monopoly and giving people a healthier alternative to booze is something they obviously don't want. Likewise, pharmaceutical companies know that pot could easily replace OTC medicines like Tylenol, Advil, Motrin or Dramamine and that chronic pain patients who use cannabis require a lot less opiate pain killers(studies have shown that legalizing MMJ is associated with a significant drop in painkiller overdoses.) So if you're worried about big business, I'd be more wary of the anti-legalization folks than the reformers. But the thing is this: we have the opportunity to create the pot industry from the ground up. I would like to see things like size limits on producers(for instance, no one company can own more than 2 hectares of marijuana-producing land, with exceptions perhaps made for cannabis grown for cosmetic products or medicinal ointments) and strictly enforced age limits. The fact that marijuana businesses are so small and can't afford their own K-street lobbying firm is precisely why this is such a great opportunity to regulate the industry as it should be. And even if it does turn into a reflection of the alcohol industry, that's still better than having the pot industry in the hands of organized crime. Also, I don't think additives are going to happen anytime soon. Pot is a luxury product like wine more than a withdrawal-reduction product like cigarettes. That's why even now in legalizing states, most pot is sold as whole buds instead of prerolled cigarettes; people really care about the quality of their weed whereas people smoke cigarettes because they're addicted. quote:The difference is that illegal dealers can't form powerful lobbying groups to make sure they can keep doing all those things. I think this is naive. Not openly, of course, they can't. But drug cartels have, by some estimates, more money than the Mexican government. And if you don't think they're funneling money into causes that are in their self-interest, well, again that seems naive. We have a good precedent for this in America: the bootlegger and baptist alliance. quote:Which is complete bullshit. Weed is less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol, but not even close to a million times less so (and it's not even in the same neighborhood as "healthy"). Studies show that marijuana smokers have the same mortality rate as non-users and that it doesn't cause lung cancer or a significant reduction in lung capacity. Studies have also shown that marijuana users have lower insulin tolerance, are less likely to be obese(even though they consume more calories thanks to pot's appetite-inducing effects), that THC and CBD protect the brain against damage from physical trauma and that the active ingredients in cannabis can even protect against cancer. We don't have enough data to say that it's definitively healthy, but I think it's in the same neighborhood. quote:The only things I'd like to see change are federal IRS regulations that make filing taxes for marijuana dispensaries much easier, somewhat lower tax rates to undercut the black market, and possibly lowering the purchase age to 18 (which IMO should also be the purchase age for alcohol, but that's another debate). One thing Colorado really needs to do is open up pot cafes. The idea that you need to take your weed home and smoke it there is stupid and counterproductive. It encourages people to drink(if you're out with friends in downtown Denver, you can stop for drinks on most blocks but if you wanna smoke a joint and chat, you've got to take a cab home, smoke up, then take a cab back into town. Which do you think most people would rather do?) and that's not good for anybody except booze producers, bar owners and morticians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:
gently caress that, smoking bans are a good thing for a wide variety of reasons and not just "some of it may cause second hand lung cancer".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:gently caress that, smoking bans are a good thing for a wide variety of reasons and not just "some of it may cause second hand lung cancer". Why? I understand wanting to ban smoking pot from bars, restaurants and cafes. But if you don't want to be exposed to smoke, you shouldn't enter the Cheeba Hut or the 420 Cafe or whatever any more than you should go to a nudist resort if you don't want to see naked people. Most smoking bans make exceptions for hookah cafes or cigar bars for the same reason and 2nd hand tobacco smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer whereas even first-hand pot smoke has been shown not to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Why? I understand wanting to ban smoking pot from bars, restaurants and cafes. But if you don't want to be exposed to smoke, you shouldn't enter the Cheeba Hut or the 420 Cafe or whatever any more than you should go to a nudist resort if you don't want to see naked people. Most smoking bans make exceptions for hookah cafes or cigar bars for the same reason and 2nd hand tobacco smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer whereas even first-hand pot smoke has been shown not to. Maybe people want to enjoy marijuana without smoking it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:59
|
|