|
computer parts posted:Maybe people want to enjoy marijuana without smoking it? Then they can do that. I'm sure that if we legalize pot cafes, some will open that only allow vaporizer use. But the majority of pot smokers like to smoke it and they should be able to do so in a cafe dedicated to that purpose.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Maybe people want to enjoy marijuana without smoking it? I want to go to a pot bar with pot enthusiasts and smoke with them. If it's made clear that the establishment I go to allows this and they card people to keep out minors, why shouldn't I legally be able to do that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:I want to go to a pot bar with pot enthusiasts and smoke with them. If it's made clear that the establishment I go to allows this and they card people to keep out minors, why shouldn't I legally be able to do that? The already existent legal argument that applies here is the health of the bar's employees and that they shouldn't be exposed to smoke. Which is why regular smoking in bars isn't legal in many places now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
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. That's because they are scientists, it's not their job to call things "perfectly safe." But you and I can take a guess based on, oh, human history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The already existent legal argument that applies here is the health of the bar's employees and that they shouldn't be exposed to smoke. Which is why regular smoking in bars isn't legal in many places now. Most of those bans have exceptions for establishments that derive the majority of their revenue from tobacco sales (that is, it is a tobacco bar rather than a bar that incidentally sells tobacco to use the loophole).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The already existent legal argument that applies here is the health of the bar's employees and that they shouldn't be exposed to smoke. Which is why regular smoking in bars isn't legal in many places now. To be clear, I'm talking about "what should be" more than "what is". What would the reason be for not allowing pro-smoke bars if the employees are made clear when they apply that second-hand smoke is a risk?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:To be clear, I'm talking about "what should be" more than "what is". What would the reason be for not allowing pro-smoke bars if the employees are made clear when they apply that second-hand smoke is a risk? Employee protections are required because employers have more power in that situation. Someone dependent on the income from working in a bar shouldn't have to have their health jeopardized if they have asthma, are pregnant, etc - that's why the exceptions to those smoking bans are very narrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Employee protections are required because employers have more power in that situation. Someone dependent on the income from working in a bar shouldn't have to have their health jeopardized if they have asthma, are pregnant, etc - that's why the exceptions to those smoking bans are very narrow. And a cafe dedicated to cannabis use is the perfect example of a sensible exception. Pot cafes make up a small percentage of the total service industry positions and there are more than enough pot smokers eager to work there that the possibility of a smoke adverse-worker being forced by economic pressure to work there is practically nil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
There's also the question of whether constant second hand exposure on the order of 40 hours a week every week for years may be a health risk even where normal exposure is not. If it happens at all, it might make more sense for there to be "smoke rooms" like some bars have where the employees don't have to go (you leave the room into the main area to buy what you need and then return), and the regular part of the bar does vapes and edibles or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
KillHour posted:So you're a tenant that wants to grow weed and you're worried about your landlord kicking you out? Nope, I don't live inside the DC line and I also barely smoke weed anymore. Point of curiosity only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:These are the same neurobiologists and psychiatrists who think Adderall is a good solution to kids acting impulsive, right? No. Murmur Twin posted: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. I totally agree. Weed isn't a big deal in the scheme of things; a bad environment is going to do a lot more damage than most drugs, let alone marijuana. That's not an argument for unrestricted access to all ages, though. The policy needs to stand on its own. SedanChair posted:That's because they are scientists, it's not their job to call things "perfectly safe." But you and I can take a guess based on, oh, human history. ...huh? There's an obvious mechanism for why it might be a risk. It's part of a scientist's job to advise on policy based on what is known. Right now, we know there's very little risk to adults and possible risk to kids. FreshlyShaven posted:And a cafe dedicated to cannabis use is the perfect example of a sensible exception. Pot cafes make up a small percentage of the total service industry positions and there are more than enough pot smokers eager to work there that the possibility of a smoke adverse-worker being forced by economic pressure to work there is practically nil. I agree with this. I don't support allowing people to openly smoke in any building, but I definitely think there should be pot lounges/cafes (in the same vein of hookah lounges).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
disheveled posted:...huh? There's an obvious mechanism for why it might be a risk. It's part of a scientist's job to advise on policy based on what is known. No it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
KillHour posted: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. If you are intellectually consistent you wouldn't be a racist. You may support policies that enable systemic racism, but that isn't necessarily on you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No it isn't. If you want a justification for why minors can't smoke weed, it's the same reason that they're not allowed to drink. Children aren't known for making sound decisions. This is why they are not allowed to agree to legally binding contracts, and cannot consent to sexual activity. Adding psychoactive drugs to the mix is not going to make them make better decisions. 90% of the stupid stuff I did when I was underage, I did drunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
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. Think of it like the difference between taming a puppy and a feral dog. Elotana fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
KillHour posted:90% of the stupid stuff I did when I was underage, I did drunk. Did the fact that you weren't allowed to drink alcohol influence your decision to drink?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If you want a justification for why minors can't smoke weed, it's the same reason that they're not allowed to drink. Children aren't known for making sound decisions. This is why they are not allowed to agree to legally binding contracts, and cannot consent to sexual activity. Adding psychoactive drugs to the mix is not going to make them make better decisions. 90% of the stupid stuff I did when I was underage, I did drunk. Minors are allowed to drink in 45 states. They just aren't allowed to purchase alchohol. The exact details vary, however. 29 only require it to not be in a public place and have parental consent. 10 states allow them to get drink at bars with parental permission. The rules seem much more in line with not wanting rowdy teens drinking on their own and causing trouble than in being concerned about the health effects. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If you want a justification for why minors can't smoke weed, it's the same reason that they're not allowed to drink. Children aren't known for making sound decisions. This is why they are not allowed to agree to legally binding contracts, and cannot consent to sexual activity. Adding psychoactive drugs to the mix is not going to make them make better decisions. 90% of the stupid stuff I did when I was underage, I did drunk. Alcohol will kill you, either with pure toxicity or by making you do stupid things. How much stupid (truly life-endangering) things did you do while high?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Did the fact that you weren't allowed to drink alcohol influence your decision to drink? It really didn't. I didn't stop drinking alcohol when I turned 21. SedanChair posted:Alcohol will kill you, either with pure toxicity or by making you do stupid things. How much stupid (truly life-endangering) things did you do while high? I climbed up the side of a drawbridge while drunk. I had sex with someone I shouldn't have while high (without protection). The first is more immediately life-endangering, I think, but the second was just as stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
KillHour posted:It really didn't. I didn't stop drinking alcohol when I turned 21. Without wanting to come off as disrespectful, I think this is a case of correlation != causation. How do you think would the second situation have been different if you weren't high? But even if not, that kind of goes back to my point that making Rules that stop teens from doing unsafe things doesn't stop them from doing unsafe things. Which is why my preference would be to give better and more realistic Drug and Alcohol (and Sex) education to kids beyond "Just Say No!".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I climbed up the side of a drawbridge while drunk. I had sex with someone I shouldn't have while high (without protection). The first is more immediately life-endangering, I think, but the second was just as stupid. Were you listening to jazz music? It tends to inflame the jungle passions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:But even if not, that kind of goes back to my point that making Rules that stop teens from doing unsafe things doesn't stop them from doing unsafe things. Which is why my preference would be to give better and more realistic Drug and Alcohol (and Sex) education to kids beyond "Just Say No!". I think that age limits are necessary. Yes, pot is a lot safer than booze or tobacco and yes, criminal records can screw over teens' prospects for the future. But legalization is dead in the water if we don't have a strict age limit. People don't want their kids using cannabis recreationally and the 21+ age limit is a good argument for legalization as a benefit to public health; say what you will about the 21 drinking age, it did reduce teen drinking. Of course, there should be exceptions for seriously ill kids who need medicinal cannabis but that's a separate issue. And more realistic education is not mutually incompatible with age limits; you can, and we should, have both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:I think that age limits are necessary. Yes, pot is a lot safer than booze or tobacco and yes, criminal records can screw over teens' prospects for the future. But legalization is dead in the water if we don't have a strict age limit. People don't want their kids using cannabis recreationally and the 21+ age limit is a good argument for legalization as a benefit to public health; say what you will about the 21 drinking age, it did reduce teen drinking. Of course, there should be exceptions for seriously ill kids who need medicinal cannabis but that's a separate issue. And more realistic education is not mutually incompatible with age limits; you can, and we should, have both. Once weed is available for purchase in Uruguay, I'd like to see a comparative study between them (18 purchase age) and Colorado/Washington (21).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Without wanting to come off as disrespectful, I think this is a case of correlation != causation. How do you think would the second situation have been different if you weren't high? Having age limits on psychoactive substances does not preclude proper drug education. And certainly, rules don't stop teens from breaking them, but they still need to exist, if only as guidance. I would be okay with marijuana laws for teens being similar to alcohol laws - a slap on the wrist, in most places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Having age limits on psychoactive substances does not preclude proper drug education. And certainly, rules don't stop teens from breaking them, but they still need to exist, if only as guidance. I would be okay with marijuana laws for teens being similar to alcohol laws - a slap on the wrist, in most places. A minor in possession charge that puts you in the justice system, in other words. And we have seen the demographic breakdown of who gets those charges, so I guess we have a pretty clear picture of what sort of status quo you'd prefer to maintain. It's not surprising that once prosperous middle-class folks get their legal weed, they're all too happy to perpetuate inequality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:A minor in possession charge that puts you in the justice system, in other words. And we have seen the demographic breakdown of who gets those charges, so I guess we have a pretty clear picture of what sort of status quo you'd prefer to maintain. In California, possession of small amounts of weed is an infraction with a $100 fine and no jail time or criminal record. I see no problem with keeping a similar law in place for teens caught with pot (we can talk fee waivers for poorer families as well).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Why. Why. Why. Why do it at all? Why make poor people actually go to more trouble than rich people by having to apply for a waiver instead of just paying the fee? Why does your thinking go no further than "I see no problem with it"? We know you don't see a problem with it. You haven't thought about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
AYC posted:In California, possession of small amounts of weed is an infraction with a $100 fine and no jail time or criminal record. I see no problem with keeping a similar law in place for teens caught with pot (we can talk fee waivers for poorer families as well). When I was at school you weren't permitted to bring your pet with you. Fining students who defied this rule or issuing them with a citation would have been idiotic. Had I brought my pet to school I would have been told it was 'not permitted' and told to take it home or call someone to take it home. KingEup fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why. Why. Why. Why do it at all? Why make poor people actually go to more trouble than rich people by having to apply for a waiver instead of just paying the fee? Why does your thinking go no further than "I see no problem with it"? We know you don't see a problem with it. You haven't thought about it. I've given it more thought than your dogmatic, naive, and extremely unrealistic "legal as cheetos" stance. Once again, you're promoting a false equivalency (No age limits OR continued systematic racism) when a better alternative exists (age limits with dramatically reduced arrest rate, I.E. Colorado).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
AYC posted:In California, possession of small amounts of weed is an infraction with a $100 fine and no jail time or criminal record. I see no problem with keeping a similar law in place for teens caught with pot (we can talk fee waivers for poorer families as well). Fines for individuals are regressive as well and ultimately what is the point of a ticket?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
AYC posted:I've given it more thought than your dogmatic, naive, and extremely unrealistic "legal as cheetos" stance. Once again, you're promoting a false equivalency (No age limits OR continued systematic racism) when a better alternative exists (age limits with dramatically reduced arrest rate, I.E. Colorado). It's not a false equivalency when you keep including systemic racism in your proposed solutions. It's hilarious how many reforming liberals seem to keep coming back to "well we have to have SOME systemic racism or this thing is never getting off of the ground." How about we just keep it illegal to sell to a minor, and not worry about fining or imprisoning minors for smoking pot? It's not the full legalization I would prefer, but at least it doesn't seem motivated by this schoolmarmish punishing instinct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
I'd be fine with simple confiscation of weed with no fine or other legal repurcussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
AYC posted:I'd be fine with simple confiscation of weed with no fine or other legal repurcussion. To what end? Do you think it would it lower teen pot use? I feel like it would just encourage teenagers to be sneakier about it, which is counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
AYC posted:I'd be fine with simple confiscation of weed with no fine or other legal repurcussion. Only if they didn't bring enough for the whole class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:To what end? Do you think it would it lower teen pot use? Marijuana, like alcohol and cigarettes, should not be legal for minors to consume or posssess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
AYC posted:Marijuana, like alcohol and cigarettes, should not be legal for minors to consume or posssess. But marijuana is not like alcohol or cigarettes at all. Those are dangerous drugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
AYC posted:Marijuana, like alcohol and cigarettes, should not be legal for minors to consume or posssess. Why does it it have to be illegal? I have no objection to cannabis, alcohol or tobacco use being 'not permitted' by minors, but illegal? Hell no. But as I said in an earlier post, soft drinks are probably more hazardous to young peoples health than cannabis (I am also of the view that soft drinks should not be permitted on school grounds and be subjected to additional taxes and onerous advertising regulations). KingEup fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
AYC posted:Marijuana, like alcohol and cigarettes, should not be legal for minors to consume or posssess. How about video games? I would argue they are as addictive and potentially bad-habit-forming as pot. How about condoms/birth control? Doesn't that send the message that kids should be having sex?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:How about video games? I would argue they are as addictive and potentially bad-habit-forming as pot. Video games are just as addictive as pot - that is to say, pot is not chemically addictive in any way. I never claimed it was, and the fact that it isn't doesn't invalidate my arguments. That being said, I fully admit that marijuana has the lowest medical risk of any commonly used recreational substance (caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are all chemically addictive). How about I rephrase my argument to be more clear? I believe that it should be illegal to sell or give items that are addictive AND/OR psychoactive to minors unless it is for a medical purpose and prescribed by a doctor. And minors in possession of these items should have them confiscated. Illegal does not mean criminalized. We can have our cake and eat it too, guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
KillHour posted:I believe that it should be illegal to sell or give items that are addictive AND/OR psychoactive to minors unless it is for a medical purpose and prescribed by a doctor. And minors in possession of these items should have them confiscated. For what it's worth, I don't think that you think it should be criminalized and I see the general point you're trying to make. My argument is this: No one wants kids to be addicted to video games. There are no laws or stigmas against kids playing video games. On paper, the way for kids not to be addicted to video games is for their parents to pull the plug and say "go outside!" (or, better yet, to encourage their children to pursue more productive interests). Most parents have a rough idea of how much time their children spend gaming and can monitor it. No one wants kids to be addicted to marijuana. There are laws and stigmas against kids smoking pot. So instead of the parents seeing their children smoking and being able to...well, parent them, kids are going off into the woods/behind the schools/to their dealer's house to smoke. and are definitely doing what they can to prevent their parents from knowing they smoke. The rules just encourages kids to hide their habit from their parents. As such, I think confiscating pot or administering fines or whatever is counterproductive. I acknowledge this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to pass it off as a proven fact or anything - it's just what I've gathered from talking to a lot of people who drank/smoked pot/did drugs as teenagers (who turned out just fine).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:15
|
|