…and this is a 
Unintended consequences
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: July 2, 2008 11:14 AM, by PZ Myers
I rather like the growing bans on smoking in bars and restaurants — it makes them much more pleasant places for those of us who'd rather not inhale poisons from acrid, burning weeds involuntarily. But maybe an exception should be made from places where the burning and inhaling of plant matter is the whole intent of visiting, as is being discovered in the Netherlands.
Millions of people flock to Amsterdam's "coffee shops" every year to legally buy cannabis and hashish over the counter and to smoke it without fear of arrest, as long as they are on the premises.
But the new law bans tobacco inside café and restaurants, meaning cannabis users are now forced to light up potent and heady pipes and joints loaded with pure marijuana.
So now visitors are getting toasted on extra-potent weed.
Hey, is this just a publicity stunt for the new "Harold and Kumar" movie?
Comments
Well, from what I've read, marijuana is neither as addictive nor as much of a health risk as tobacco. So why not?
Posted by: Jason Dick | July 2, 2008 11:19 AM
woot iowa went smoke free yesterday and its a whole new world.
Posted by: chuckman | July 2, 2008 11:21 AM
I still don't understand why smoking tobacco should be banned from bars. Ideally there would be smoking and non-smoking bars, and people could choose which to patronize.
Then again, if one had to switch to marijuana in response, what would be the problem? At least in the Netherlands they get to smoke something else, while here we don't.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 2, 2008 11:24 AM
I would have to agree with Jason. Also, if an exception were made just for 'coffee shops', other cafés and restaurants would be livid. It would probably lead to a lot of places declaring themselves 'coffee shops' to subvert the ban. I say blanket ban on tobacco and let the 'coffee shop goers' adjust their caffeine intake accordingly.
Posted by: Finnegan | July 2, 2008 11:27 AM
I agree that smoking bothers non-smokers, but some cities are going a little too far firing employees for smoking on work breaks outside. I work at such a place and because I consider it such a huge infringment on my personal rights, I would not consider staying in such an environment much longer. I want control over my own body, (where have we heard this before?)I don't ask others to breathe my smoke, and I don't do it where others can, it's always outside no matter what the temperature is.
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 2, 2008 11:28 AM
I remember - back in the day - much prefering a pipe of hash instead of a joint... Much less hassle to make, much less hassle to smoke, much less cost (no cigarettes needed), and a pipe can easily be made (macgyver-like) from many common and readily available materials :D
In fact I think I recall that we generally only smoked a joint when in public, to avoid visually offending those of a less 'liberal' persuation.
Tony
Posted by: tony | July 2, 2008 11:29 AM
Glen D:
Well, one major reason is the health of employees. Second hand smoke is very hard on staff. Sure, one can argue that they could choose not to work in the restaurant, but that's not an option for everyone, and honestly, if you ran a factory and exposed your workers to that kind of toxic atmosphere without appropriate protection you'd be sued in no time.
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 2, 2008 11:29 AM
Also, I hear that Starbucks is having finacial trouble, this might just be what the doctor prescribed for them.
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 2, 2008 11:30 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 2, 2008 11:36 AM
As a smoker, living in California, I don't understand how this isn't in every state everywhere. I couldn't even imagine lighting up indoors. I'm of the age where as long as I have been legally of age to smoke, this law has been in effect. I even have issues smoking outside if someones around (ESPECIALLY CHILDREN). Who wants to smoke inside anyway? That's just gross to me. And in restaurants? That's even worst. There are a few bars in town here that allow smoking (illegally) and that I actually agree with, if your in a dive bar, and the bar tenders got a cancer stick in his lips, then whatever, it's a bar. If your offended by that, then go to another bar. But don't do it where I eat.
"So now visitors are getting toasted on extra-potent weed.So now visitors are getting toasted on extra-potent weed."
And this is going to be a little off topic, but I hate the argument against marijuana about how "potent" it is these days, and how bad that is. Well, the way I see it, more potent weed doesn't mean you getting any more THC, but actually, you just smoke a whole lot less. I've heard stories from friends parents that they used to sit around and smoke a joint to themselves to get high. What do kids do today? They take a 'snap' which is about 1/16 the amount of matter. Which do you think is better? A huge amount of burning dry grass or a small 'shot' of smoke, both giving the same effect?
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 11:36 AM
Let me start off by saying that I am not a smoker, but I vehemently disagree with the growing city and state-wide smoking bans across the US and now in Europe as well. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy going to bars these days and not smoking a pack of cigarettes worth of second hand smoke and smelling like an ash tray, but a straight ban is not the right answer. What is the right answer? License it. Just as a bar/restaurant must have a license to serve liquor, a bar/restaurant should be able to pay for the right to allow smoking on their premises. People than then choose whether or not to patronize that establishment and expose themselves to the smoke. This would also give employees the option to work for a smoking vs. nonsmoking establishment.
I'm willing to bet that we see a a lot of these draconian laws repealed within the next decade, and 100 years from now we will view this time in history the same way we view Prohibition.
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 11:39 AM
As a big-time pot smoker, I find the idea of mixing tobacco with weed an abomination. It's also true that tobacco is much, much more addictive than cannabis and much, much more likely to give you cancer. So to a certain extent the law makes sense. But I can see going the other way, as long as cafe workers are OK with the secondhand tobacco smoke.
Posted by: ndt | July 2, 2008 11:40 AM
Unintended? It was known since march (National news service reported about this on the 23th) that this would happen. Several political parties even tried to exempt coffee shops but the minister of health refused and specifically stated that smoking pure cannabis is allowed.
Some shops are now selling pipes that you can smoke pure Cannabis with. Another thing is that might happen is the sale and smoking of 'old' versions of cannabis, that is with a THC content of around 3% to 5% instead of the level of Skunk that 12% to 15%, to stop people from getting sick.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 2, 2008 11:42 AM
Dude, wait. What?
Posted by: Matthew | July 2, 2008 11:42 AM
I saw that "Harold and Kumar" movie today,and there is indeed a whole lot of weed smoking going on.
I know a certain HIV researcher was looking forward to watching it,I thought it was rather lame,despite the many a dangling genitalia and marihuana references.
How ironic is it that you have to smoke your weed pure because tobacco is banned in cafes? Hard to believe really LOL
Posted by: clinteas | July 2, 2008 11:42 AM
Having separate smoking and non-smoking bars just doesn't work for some reason.
I suspect it's the following: when you're going to a bar, you're usually in a group including both smokers and non-smokers. The smokers, being addicts, pretty much refuse to go to a non-smoking bar. That's how it always seemed to happen before the smoking bans in the UK, anyway. I much prefer it now I can have a swift half without making my hair stink.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 2, 2008 11:43 AM
Smoke-free is the way to be.
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 2, 2008 11:44 AM
England and Wales went smoke-free a year ago (Scotland having preceded us by several months) and it has certainly made a big impact on the Great British Pub. Now non-smoking
borderline alcoholicsbeer connoisseurs can poison our livers without worrying about second-hand smoke.Posted by: Jonathan | July 2, 2008 11:46 AM
"As a smoker, living in California, I don't understand how this isn't in every state everywhere. I couldn't even imagine lighting up indoors."
I live next to smokers who go outside to smoke - sometimes four of them at a time - and all their smoke blow into my house.
I want them to smoke inside their own house, with the windows closed, so that they will be subjecting their three kids to the stinking poisons they spew - and not me!
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 2, 2008 11:49 AM
It's total bunk anyway - I know I guy who used to import Mexican red oil into the UK about 20-30 years ago, and that stuff's about 98% THC. All these articles about how weed today is so much stronger than it used to be only demonstrate one thing - everyone gets burned as a teenager. There's always been plenty strong dope out there.
A lot of the dope in Europe is hashish, and it's really hard to skin up with pure resin. Doesn't burn that well either...
Posted by: Dunc | July 2, 2008 11:49 AM
I know the argument, Epinephrine (#7), but it seems to go against the entire ethos of the bar experience. Isn't it about being (relatively) free, and taking the legal drugs?
That it may be a problem for employees I don't doubt, but surely the bar exists primarily to serve its customers. Licensing (Ben might be right), regulation, and minimizing exposure for employees may well be in order. I just can't see why there shouldn't be any public place at all (no matter how voluntary attending it may be) that persons can't indulge in their favorite vices, and socialize with others who do the same. Besides, smoking and alcohol go well together.
I suppose if we think tobacco ought to be banned in public places, so should weed. But all of a sudden, most of the coffee shops of Amsterdam would have no reason for being. And again, should there really be no indoor place where smokers of either drug can't hang out with each other while indulging?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 2, 2008 11:50 AM
@9
Boobie!
@12
"As a big-time pot smoker, I find the idea of mixing tobacco with weed an abomination"
I second that!
@16
"when you're going to a bar, you're usually in a group including both smokers and non-smokers. The smokers, being addicts, pretty much refuse to go to a non-smoking bar"
I completely disagree. Here in Santa Cruz, we have both smoking and not smoking bars (only a few smoking that are legal, including hooka bars, most are not legal) and I'm a smoker, with lots of non-smoking friends. This is not an issue. If I'm in a bar, and want a cigarette but can't, then guess what I do? I rally the troops of smokers and go outside, not too hard, eh? But here in Cali it's pretty normal to feel like you need to excuse yourself outside if you want a cig.
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 11:53 AM
bbc article about millionaire evangelists
Posted by: liz | July 2, 2008 11:55 AM
This is silly. Why don't they just cut the potent cannabis with the rope (hemp) variety which has negligible THC? Or just load the pipe up with smaller quantities of marijuana?
Posted by: raven | July 2, 2008 11:56 AM
it stripped out the url to the bbc article about millionaire evangelists. click on my name it should take you there i hope.
Posted by: liz | July 2, 2008 11:57 AM
"I rather like the growing bans on smoking in bars and restaurants -- it makes them much more pleasant places for those of us who'd rather not inhale poisons from acrid, burning weeds involuntarily."
Some people rather liked laws against sodomy: it makes the world a much nicer place for those who'd rather gay people just feel miserable.
Seriously: since when did people start "involuntarily" entering bars or restaurants that allowed smoking? Was this behavior the result of some sort of supervillian mind-control?
Posted by: Bad | July 2, 2008 11:59 AM
jj - well, that's maybe a cultural difference, or due to the fact that not being able to see across the room has been part of the UK pub ambience for generations. I've known smokers get tetchy about even sitting in the smoke-free room in a pub with smoking areas.
Maybe when people get used to the idea that drinking beer is more pleasant without the associated fumigation, it'll be possible to bring back smoking pubs under a licensing scheme.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 2, 2008 12:02 PM
Bad-
There's no law requiring you to brush your teeth, either. However, if you've got terrible breath, I don't want you breathing in my face, especially in a public venue.
Posted by: Michael | July 2, 2008 12:06 PM
I still don't understand why smoking tobacco should be banned from bars. Ideally there would be smoking and non-smoking bars, and people could choose which to patronize. Glen D.
To protect bar staff. While in theory I guess you could allow some staff to work only in the non-smoking areas, in practice, I don't think it would work.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 2, 2008 12:06 PM
I'm a non-smoker, and I really don't have much sympathy for the habit, but I'm in Minnesota, and I can actually understand how some people might object to being told to go outside to smoke. Try that in February.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 2, 2008 12:08 PM
So, a taxed and legal drug cannot possibly be consumed indoors because its just THAT dangerous. But the illegal drugs? Oh yeah, help yourself smoke all you want. Stupid hypocritical drugs policy at its best.
Posted by: Hoots_mon | July 2, 2008 12:09 PM
Whatever you do, don't smoke. Period.
Use your brain and think about what you are doing. Not only does it rob the body of any youth (this is worth looking in to) it might have, it potentially exposes it to the ravages of a relentless disease.
I guess if tobacco wasn't so addictive and quitting wasn't an issue, I might soften my attitude. We all act out in our youth - it's healthy, but acting out by getting addicted to nicotine ends up having that very unhealthy habit stick with you to the age where it no longer looks "cool". You turn into a smelly, out of shape, wrinkly, coughy, yellow-haired, yellow-skined, creature exposed to the risk of a protracted and painful struggle to not die from cancer. So not cool.
I'm an ex-smoker.
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 12:10 PM
"This is silly. Why don't they just cut the potent cannabis with the rope (hemp) variety which has negligible THC? Or just load the pipe up with smaller quantities of marijuana?"
NO! no no. Just smoke the pot, man, there is no need to cut it! It's pot, it's not going to hurt you if it's potent, I swear. You can't overdose on pot, and the worst case scenario is you get paranoid and don't want to stand up. Seriously, legalize it! (We've semi-legalized it in my town [lowest priority crime] and you can't get busted for it. Guess what? Crime has actually gone down, mostly drug related crimes)
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 12:11 PM
Well, the way I see it, more potent weed doesn't mean you getting any more THC, but actually, you just smoke a whole lot less. - jj
The only argument I've seen against that with even a hint of plausibility is that the new strains alter the balance of different psychoactive chemicals (THC vs cannabidiol I think), and that THC tends to increase paranoia while cannabidiol damps it down, without affecting the "high". Whether this is true or not, I don't know; UK epidemiological studies as yet have shown no increase in schizophrenia over the period when the new stronger strains have become common.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 2, 2008 12:13 PM
#29 Nick,
Bars can be, and have been, required to carry medical insurance if they allow smoking. Employees can choose to work there or not.
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 12:14 PM
"But here in Cali it's pretty normal to feel like you need to excuse yourself outside if you want a cig."
Philip Morris thinks complete outdoor bans go to far, so you smokers have a champion for your cause - polluting our shared environment to satisfy your desire for a little nicotine.
"Smoking should be permitted outdoors except in very particular circumstances, such as outdoor areas primarily designed for children."
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 2, 2008 12:14 PM
#36 CalGeorge,
"Philip Morris thinks complete outdoor bans go to far, so you smokers have a champion for your cause - polluting our shared environment to satisfy your desire for a little nicotine."
I suppose then, George, that you are against anyone driving a car to anywhere other than their jobs and the grocery store. Or maybe you don't think that people should burn wood in the winter to stay warm. Heaven forbid we grill meat in the summertime...
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 12:17 PM
#32 Alex,
Whatever you do, don't eat red meat. Period.
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 12:19 PM
"I'm a non-smoker, and I really don't have much sympathy for the habit, but I'm in Minnesota, and I can actually understand how some people might object to being told to go outside to smoke. Try that in February."
Well, PZ, I do smoke and I do do it outside, year round, but not in Minnesota (I don't think I'd want to be in Minnesota in February, no offense)... And I do not have sympathy for the habit either, it's gross, smelly and disgusting, but I love it! It's nice to be able, after a long day of work, to go home sit on my porch and smoke a cigarette. It calms me a bit (granted, it's a stimulant and the calming is more a calming of the addiction), and I think it's easy to control the amount I smoke, a pack a week aint too bad, I'll probably die of heart attack from all the fast food I'm surrounded by....
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 12:20 PM
Hey Ben, whatever man. I only have red meat a couple times a month. But your comment misses the point. Red meat is not addictive. I thought I put the addictiveness caveat in my post. Oh wait, I did. I guess you must of missed it.
Smoke as much as you want then dude. Enjoy!!
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 12:21 PM
"Bars can be, and have been, required to carry medical insurance if they allow smoking. Employees can choose to work there or not."
Actually no, there may be much choice at all. In the UK a lot of bar work is part time. That suits students and mothers. There is not a whole lot of other part time evening work around. It also important to note that since the smoking bans came into force in the UK the number of people who have stopped smoking has risen dramatically. That is no bad thing.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 12:25 PM
Alex,
Your post includes and specifically addresses the ravages of cancer, and red meat has been shown to have substantial carcinogenic qualities. It is the same thing. If you'd read my first post you would have noted that I am not a smoker.
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 12:27 PM
"Or maybe you don't think that people should burn wood in the winter to stay warm."
No, they should not!
American Lung Association:
"In most areas of the country, woodburning from fireplaces and woodstoves is the largest source of particulate matter air pollution (PM) generated by residential sources. In some localities, fireplaces and woodstoves have been identified as the source of 80% or more of all ambient particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) during the winter months. A large body of evidence links PM with adverse health outcomes, including excess mortality, especially among those with preexisting cardiopulmonary illness."
http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.23354/k.100/Woodburning.htm
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 2, 2008 12:27 PM
I live in Calgary (thats in Canada) and we have been non-smoking in bars since the first of this year and you still see people standing outside shivering in winter smoking. If we can do it i don't see why you guys can't do it too. :)
Posted by: Nicki | July 2, 2008 12:28 PM
Scienceblogs actually has its very own second hand smoke causes disease denialist in its ranks. Kudos to the person who can name him or her. I would just add he/she has been very careful not to post about their denial on scienceblogs, but did so elsewhere. I imagine they knew they would get ripped apart by the resident medics and medical students had they done so here.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 12:28 PM
"The only argument I've seen against that with even a hint of plausibility is that the new strains alter the balance of different psychoactive chemicals (THC vs cannabidiol I think), and that THC tends to increase paranoia while cannabidiol damps it down, without affecting the "high"."
Depends on the strain, there are MANY different types, all with different ratios and concentrations of cannibinoids, and that will definitely change the 'high'. Some will give a more 'head high' and others a 'body high', the latter having less paranoia.
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 12:28 PM
George,
I don't disagree, but I've spent time in areas of the country where they have no access to natural gas. What would you have them do, freeze?
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 12:30 PM
Besides, "You can choose whether to work here or not" is no excuse for putting one's employees in danger. If you ran a building site without hard hats, or exposed workers to carbon monoxide poisoning, you'd get the book thrown at you and quite right too.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 2, 2008 12:31 PM
Ben,
My point about being addictive still stands. Red meat is not addictive. It's not a difficult idea to grasp. Your point about red meat causing cancer is a side issue. For one, meat is nourishment, smoking tobacco is not. For two, red meat is not addictive - oh wait, I said that already.
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 12:33 PM
Depends on the strain, there are MANY different types, all with different ratios and concentrations of cannibinoids, and that will definitely change the 'high'. Some will give a more 'head high' and others a 'body high', the latter having less paranoia. - jj
I bow to your superior expertise ;-)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 2, 2008 12:35 PM
Ben Goldacre has a good post on all the "modern skunk 30 times stronger" nonsense. Although I'm sure theres been a number of reports around the world and I couldn't be sure what story you're referring to or where they got their information from, since this relates to the media coverage in the UK.
http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/
Posted by: Hoots_mon | July 2, 2008 12:35 PM
@27 "jj - well, that's maybe a cultural difference"
I think it is too! California has been smoke free in bars/restaurants for something like 10 years (1994 workplace ban [including restaurants], 1998 bar ban),and I think it's the way we look at smoking here these days.
I think Cali's pretty progressive with these kinds of things. As of yesterday, you can't drive and talk on your cell phone without a hands free (not too sure if thats anywhere else or not, but it should be)!
Who knew I was so concerned with smoking....
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 12:36 PM
There are whole load of foods that contain carginogens. Most vegetables contain them, especially the brassicas. Are we going to tell people not to eat cabage because it contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer ? No, of course not. We know the benefits of eating cabage far outwigh the miniscule risk it poses.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 12:36 PM
JJ,
It has been illegal in the UK to drive and use your mobile, unless connected to a hands-free kit for about three years now.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 12:38 PM
"Are we going to tell people not to eat cabage because it contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer "
Ohh I'm waiting to see the sign in my local produce department "This product contain substances know to the state of California to cause cancer"
It actually says that on cans of TAB....
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 12:40 PM
Alex,
You made several points and I addressed one of them. I am not arguing the addictive properties of cigarettes. I thought that was pretty clear when I didn't touch on that specific point.
"Your point about red meat causing cancer is a side issue." But it is an issue that you put forth for discussion.
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 12:40 PM
I grew up in San Jose, CA. For the life of me I simply can't recall every seeing anyone smoking in a grocery store, library, hospital, church...of course, there was a lot of smoking in bars and restaurants (which always had "smoking sections"). When the anti-smoking promoters came out, the argument was "we have to stop all this smoking in grocery stores, libraries, hospitals, churches".
I have been living in Reno, NV. for almost 20 years now, and it's deja vu all over again. Anti-smoking measures have passed the ballot, and it was the same thing: we don't want people smoking in places where smokers never smoked in the first place.
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, if you don't want to be around smokers, and smoke, then go someplace where there is no smoke! How hard is this to fathom? These days, there are plenty of choices, thanks to rampant anti-smoking legislation.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | July 2, 2008 12:44 PM
Don't inhale smoke! Maybe both types of smokes should be banned in public. I have not seen data on second-hand pot smoke and its effects on "coffee shop" staff. But pot smoke appears to rattle the respiratory epithelium about as badly as tobacco smoke.
Goodman & Gilman (3rd or 4th ed, I think) used to have a chapter on cannabis, written in flowery prose, a part of which described the pros and cons of inhaling vs. ingesting. The latter requires preparation at cooking to baking temperatures, is slower in onset, with effects more protracted, and obviously without leaving smoke signals. Lore has it that at the time, Betty Crocker did brisk business selling brownie mix.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 2, 2008 12:46 PM
"There are whole load of foods that contain carginogens. Most vegetables contain them, especially the brassicas."
Actually, most organic material contains carcinogens. Some more than others.
"Are we going to tell people not to eat cabage because it contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer? No, of course not. We know the benefits of eating cabage far outwigh the miniscule risk it poses."
And the foods that have a higher risk? Should people been informed then?
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 12:46 PM
Ben,
My discussion was about the addictiveness of smoking and how it robs youth and may lead to cancer.
Your logic lead you to a quip about not eating red meat because it also causes cancer.
I assert that the flaw in your logic can be found in the fact that red meat is not addictive.
Addictiveness of the substance is the crux of the matter, not the disease which may result. To clarify, if smoking did not rob youth or cause disease, I would have not problems with it. If smoking was not addictive, I would relax (slightly) my attitudes about it.
Nuff said already. There really isn't much to argue over.
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 12:48 PM
The Guardian had a good article.
Quote:
Posted by: Andy Holroyd | July 2, 2008 12:49 PM
The different effects of strains of weed are pretty significant. (I came across one called "Purple Haze" that was remarkably like low-dose LSD...) Is it all an effect of the THC/cannibidiol ratio, i.e. head high/body high, or are there other goodies having an effect in there?
Ah, the excitement of natural products. So many different metabolic products!
Also, why the hell would you ever mix tobacco with your hash? Unless, I suppose, you're putting the whole thing through a hookah, in which case you need a bit of padding. That's actually pretty nice -- the tobacco's far less acrid and lots of the nastier chemicals are stripped by the water, plus it cools it off.
On the weed potency issue: posters here are right, it's no added problem. Honestly, I find that mostly when people get to the point where they're stoned enough, they stop smoking it. It's not like alcohol where once you're drunk you want to be drunker (or N2O...!) -- there's a definite point at which most people just pass the pipe on. I don't think there's any issues at all from making people smoke straight weed instead of spliffs.
Posted by: octopod | July 2, 2008 12:49 PM
"At the risk of sounding like a jerk, if you don't want to be around smokers, and smoke, then go someplace where there is no smoke! How hard is this to fathom? These days, there are plenty of choices, thanks to rampant anti-smoking legislation."
So essentially you would tell people who do not want to be in a smokey environment to avoid going to the pub ? Unless of course there is a smoking ban in place. Nice to know you are so considerate of others.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 12:51 PM
Of course if you ate enough red meat to put yourself at risk of cancer then is it not also likely you would already have died of heart disease brought about from all that fat ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 12:54 PM
Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 2, 2008 12:54 PM
@58
"The latter requires preparation at cooking to baking temperatures, is slower in onset, with effects more protracted, and obviously without leaving smoke signals."
Ingestion does NOT give the same affect. Ingestion gives a way more 'body high' and takes up to three hours to feel the effect, and tends to be a lower grade feelign that lasts MUCH longer. This isn't bad, though (from the prospective of a user), as special brownies are quite tasty. The herb needs to be heated to get the affect too, and is often done wrong. Best way, melt a bunch of butter in a double boiler and toss in some shwag, let it boil for a few hours, and then you can put it in anything that uses butter (mmm green butter toast, also special spaghetti is quite good)!
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 12:55 PM
Whereas you would tell people who do want to be in a smokey environment...what, exactly? To avoid going to the pub? Right.
Posted by: nicole | July 2, 2008 12:57 PM
I've always felt like a smoking ban was going way too far. Let business owners run smoking or non-smoking bars. If the people want non-smoking bars that one should be great. If you don't want to be around second hand smoke, don't take a job there. I'm allergic to gluten, I won't be working in a pizza shop and if I did I wouldn't insist they remove wheat based products from the menu.
Posted by: Soybomb | July 2, 2008 12:58 PM
Those who argue that people have a choice if they enter a smokey environment or not totally miss the point. No business is unilaterraly going to ban smoking if its competitors still allow it. A pub than bans smoking will loose custom to other pubs that do not. Thus there cannot be a choice. Before the smoking bans came into force in the UK no pubs had voluntarily banned smoking, yet if we follow the logic of the likes Alex we should have expected them to.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 12:58 PM
By the way,
I give this post a C for Cannabis.
.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 2, 2008 12:58 PM
Inevitably they will have a few anti-social scofflaws who try to sneak some tobacco in, pretending it's marijuana.
Posted by: beagledad | July 2, 2008 12:59 PM
In the grand scheme of things, my position against smoking bans has less to do with smoking and its ill effects than it does with the limiting of personal freedom. America did that once, and we eventually came to our senses. America used to stand for personal freedom and liberty and in all honesty, I believe that we have lost sight of those lofty ideals and instances of limiting those aforementioned freedoms and liberties such as these grandiose smoking bans are just the tip of the iceberg. I have no doubt that if present trends continue that I will live to see the day when other freedoms are taken away as well. I will leave with a fantastic little monologue that while overly dramatic and quintessentially Hollywood (well, it is from a movie), has always sat in the back of my mind reminding me of the absurd reality of the state or city-wide smoking bans.
You see, according to [the plan] I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay? I've seen the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 1:01 PM
I'm fairly sure that the practice of packing your bowl with 100% sticky nugs isn't exactly new.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | July 2, 2008 1:02 PM
Octopod @62
Ahh good old purple haze, good stuff! And I agree fully, you'll smoke until you get what you want out of it, and stop, seriously.
Also, I loved those anti-drug commercial about how if you buy pot your supporting terrorists. What? Yeah that's right, the hippie who lives down the street who's growing an 'afghan' strain and selling it to me is definitely a terrorist. I think not.
Another thing that changes the type of high, in regards to the strain and THC ratio is if it is a Sativa or Indica strain. Although I've been told that has more to do with when the herb was picked and how it is cured.
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 1:03 PM
"Whereas you would tell people who do want to be in a smokey environment...what, exactly? To avoid going to the pub? Right."
I would tell them that when they want to smoke they can go outside. You it seems would have asthmatics and others effectivly banned from pubs. Really nice attitude that Nicole. Very unselfish of you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 1:04 PM
Dunc @20,
A lot of the dope in Europe is hashish, and it's really hard to skin up with pure resin
Anybody who can't handle a one-hit bong or smoke it under glass shouldn't be smoking it at all.
Not that I'd know about that sort of thing.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | July 2, 2008 1:05 PM
Matt @ 69,
I was attempting to speak from a personal perspective. As far as legislating a smoking ban, there's much more to think about. I live in CA and, as an ex-smoker, am glad about the ban. It can go too far though. I agree with you that it would never happen voluntarily at pub establishments. Drinking and smoking go hand in hand.
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 1:07 PM
"A pub than bans smoking will loose custom to other pubs that do not."
I don't see why. For all the people that proclaim they hate smoking...shouldn't they be flocking in droves to the non-smoking bar in town? It seems like a cash cow.
Posted by: Soybomb | July 2, 2008 1:10 PM
The original reason for banning smoking in pubs and restaurants in Ireland (was this the first place - certainly in europe - to ban it?) was that the government was afraid of legal challenges from staff at these establishments who developed problems due to second hand smoke.
While I think its been great most of the time I think its gone too far in certain circumstances. A friend of mine recently applied for a post at The Cleveland Clinic in the US and got the position. They were then told that the clinic has a zero tolerance policy for tobacco which they enforce by doing blood tests for nicotine!
Anyone who tests positive for nicotine will have their job offer rescinded!
How on earth is a Big Brother tactic like this justified?
Posted by: Sigmund | July 2, 2008 1:10 PM
I am all for keeping my weed tobacco-free, but, the second hand smoke thing is a load of crap. I can see not wanting to smell it, but, few people have ever been hurt from a wisp of smoke. If you don't like it you can go somewhere that doesn't allow it, but, why force the issue like a wannabe NAZI.
I see that more than a few of you commentators need a little more education on the "dangers" of marijuana. I suggest a visit to www.norml.org and do some simple research. If cancer and scizophrenia, etc. where affects of smoking pot, we would see a huge spike in the Boomers. Guess what, we don't.
Sure, I'm jaded. Evidence is still evidence, though.
Posted by: fatherdaddy | July 2, 2008 1:11 PM
Sigmund,
The simple answer is that there is no justification. And in the UK such a demand would not be legal. An employer can demand you turn up to work sober and with fresh breath, but they cannot prevent you drinking and smoking in your own time. Of course there are some jobs where being under the influence of alcohol would be dangerous, and the law allows for those in such jobs to be tested. It would not allow for the testing of an office worker though.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 1:18 PM
"I don't see why. For all the people that proclaim they hate smoking...shouldn't they be flocking in droves to the non-smoking bar in town? It seems like a cash cow."
If you cannot see why you need to you look into the economics of running a pub. Come back to us when you have.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 1:20 PM
#69 Matt,
"No business is unilaterraly going to ban smoking if its competitors still allow it. A pub than bans smoking will loose custom to other pubs that do not. Thus there cannot be a choice."
Except that studies done in cities here in the US have shown that there is not a statistically significant decrease in business since a ban has been instituted.
Posted by: Ben | July 2, 2008 1:21 PM
"I see that more than a few of you commentators need a little more education on the "dangers" of marijuana. I suggest a visit to www.norml.org and do some simple research. If cancer and scizophrenia, etc. where affects of smoking pot, we would see a huge spike in the Boomers. Guess what, we don't."
You hit the nail on the head! Marijuana laws (in the US) where put in place to harass the minority population (African Americans, especially Jazz musicians, and Immigrants from Mexico). Anybody ever see the movie reefer madness?
Posted by: jj | July 2, 2008 1:22 PM
Many commentators at this blog value rational thouhgt, and hammer creationists for being irrational idiots. But here's the smoking issue, and rather than talking about whether smoking is rational or irrational, we talk about whether it's a right or not.
What's the rational argument for `smoking is good'?
And if it's irrational to smoke, why do you do it? And why do you argue that rational people (non-smokers) have to bend to the will of the irrational (smokers)? Shouldn't the irrational be told: "quit being so damned stupid and change your behaviour?"
Posted by: bill | July 2, 2008 1:23 PM