It's ok Mr. Officer, it's just a joint

[germanos]

Originally posted by rah
I know germanos, but it's illegal to smoke a cigarette in those coffee shops because it's bad for your health.

This is why I'm astounded about this.

It is a curious thing for sure.


Actually the smoking ban is in place not for the smokers themselfes, but to give the personel in bars etc. a safe working environment.
Any pub or dancing or whatever can have a indoor smoking area where there will be no service from personel.


It's the typical Dutch approach: While the measures put in place certainly give the sign that smoking is bad and must be discouraged, at the same time there is thorough care that individuals can still smoke if they want, and that businesses can still run without an immediate crippling effect.


Fun fact: Since tobacco is an essentialy legal drug for centuries (it's twin being alcohol), it has it's own laws and regulations, seperate from all the other bad stuff. Thus when the government went for additional regulation regarding smoking tobacco, it didn't automatically cover smoking anything else, and seperate measures are required regarding coffee-shops.
So the new law can disallow for smoking tobacco in coffee-shops, but not not weed/hash.


It will some day though.

[rah]

Actually the smoking ban is in place not for the smokers themselfes, but to give the personel in bars etc. a safe working environment.
Any pub or dancing or whatever can have a indoor smoking area where there will be no service from personel.


It's the typical Dutch approach: While the measures put in place certainly give the sign that smoking is bad and must be discouraged, at the same time there is thorough care that individuals can still smoke if they want, and that businesses can still run without an immediate crippling effect.

At least that is a very SENSIBLE approach. I wish people were that sensible in the US. Instead, we get the smoke nazis.

and yes, the same rational (safe working envirionment) was used to push it here.

[MarkG]

i was watching a documentary the other day that linked cannabis with mental disorders, even schizophrenia

[rah]

God, SHOULD I BE WORRIED.

NAW, ignore it.

I can't.

[Ben Kenobi]

At least that is a very SENSIBLE approach. I wish people were that sensible in the US. Instead, we get the smoke nazis.

and yes, the same rational (safe working envirionment) was used to push it here.

I don't understand that. I don't smoke myself, but if someone wants to start up a joint with smoking, why can't they do so?

When they do their hiring, they can say up front, this is a smoking joint. If you don't like it I'll hire someone else.

[Arrian]

1. Kid, no way is inhaling smoke of any kind healthy. Not all smoke is going to be as unhealthy as cig smoke, but still. Even if smoking joints hasn't been tied to cancer it's not good for your lungs. Hence all the coughing, ya know? The healthy way would be eating brownies and such (which I hear are good over there in Amsterdam).

2. I don't have a problem with creating a "smoking bar" category. Patrons and workers will be aware they are going to be exposed to second hand smoke...

... though I really don't see the big deal about having smokers go outside to some designated area to have a cig. It's just not a big deal, and it eliminates the exposure of non-smokers to second hand smoke. It's basic courtesy, really (enforced, I'll grant).

-Arrian

[rah]

The arguement went that people desperate for a job would take it anyway, but they still need protection.

And that owners if given the choice would stay a smoking place even if they didn't want to because they'd fear losing business. And the only way it would work is if everyone couldn't, so they would all be playing on a level field.

The non smokers feared that no owners would go smokeless.

I still believe that owners should be able to choose for themselves. (even though I'm no longer a smoker)

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When they do their hiring, they can say up front, this is a smoking joint. If you don't like it I'll hire someone else.

No, you can't do that.
Arguing the same way, one could start a chemical waste disposal plant and say: "Hey, if you want protective gear go work somewhere else!"

Not to metion the fact that some looneys would say: "What's with these unemployment benifit profeteers, when there's so much work to be done in hazardous areas"


Nobody should be denied a job simply because the employer says: screw your health or I don't want you here.

[Ben Kenobi]

The arguement went that people desperate for a job would take it anyway, but they still need protection.

That's their decision to accept the consequences. If they are adequately informed prior, I can't see why they would want or need protection.

And that owners if given the choice would stay a smoking place even if they didn't want to because they'd fear losing business. And the only way it would work is if everyone couldn't, so they would all be playing on a level field.

It was a concern here as well. I don't think it would have been difficult to get places to be non-smoking. It would be better then the situation we have now when it's -40 out and they have to go outside even when the owner

[germanos]

Originally posted by MarkG
i was watching a documentary the other day that linked cannabis with mental disorders, even schizophrenia

The question is: what is cause, and what is effect?

I'm aware of these studies, and cause and effect have NOT been substantually been correlated.

[Felch]

Kidi, I hope you're right. But my lungs give me doubt.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by germanos


No, you can't do that.
Arguing the same way, one could start a chemical waste disposal plant and say: "Hey, if you want protective gear go work somewhere else!"

Not to metion the fact that some looneys would say: "What's with these unemployment benifit profeteers, when there's so much work to be done in hazardous areas"


Nobody should be denied a job simply because the employer says: screw your health or I don't want you here.

Good point, which, coupled with my "what's the big deal" feeling about going outside to smoke, means I'm fine with the current setup.

-Arrian

[Proteus_MST]

As one coffee shop owner epressed it:

All around europe it is illegal to put hash into your nicotine cigarettes.
Only in Holland it is the other way round with it being illagal to put nicotine to hash

[Felch]

Originally posted by germanos
No, you can't do that.
Arguing the same way, one could start a chemical waste disposal plant and say: "Hey, if you want protective gear go work somewhere else!"

Not to metion the fact that some looneys would say: "What's with these unemployment benifit profeteers, when there's so much work to be done in hazardous areas"

Nobody should be denied a job simply because the employer says: screw your health or I don't want you here.

Eh, that's not very convincing. We're talking about a very low risk of danger, that only manifests after decades of sustained exposure.

[Ben Kenobi]

Arguing the same way, one could start a chemical waste disposal plant and say: "Hey, if you want protective gear go work somewhere else!"

I don't know anyone who goes out in a chemical waste disposal plant on their own time. Plenty of folks choose to smoke, and don't mind being around other smokers.

Nobody should be denied a job simply because the employer says: screw your health or I don't want you here.

I think the owner of the place should be able to hire whomever we want. I certainly know employers who would refuse to hire a smoker, so why is that ok, when the opposite is not?