No Smoking (Except for Pot):
Under a new smoking ban that will take effect in the Netherlands July 1, tobacco smoking in coffee shops and other public places will be prohibited. Marijuana smoking, on the other hand, will still be permitted.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
This policy makes no sense.
Except that people go to these coffee shops specifically for cannabis, just as people go to bars for alcoholic beverages. Banning cannabis smoking in coffee shops that sell cannabis makes as much sense as banning drinking in bars.
You also have the problem of contact highs with pot that you don't with tobacco. I suspect though that the theory is that if many were just a tiny bit high much of the time, life would be more mellow for the masses. Tobacco doesn't have this side benefit, so must be banned.
Well, banning smoking tobacco in cigar bars would be a closer equivalent. Most people in ordinary bars do not go there to smoke tobacco, but to drink alcoholic beverages.
Let's also outlaw talking to people you don't know in bars. Most people in ordinary bars do not go there to smoke tobacco or pick up dates, but to drink alcoholic beverages.
And what's with all the tv's? Ban 'em, I say.
Most people in ordinary bars do not go there to smoke tobacco, pick up dates, or watch sports, but to drink alcoholic beverages.
BH, "You also have the problem of contact highs with pot that you don't with tobacco. I suspect though that the theory is that if many were just a tiny bit high much of the time, life would be more mellow for the masses. Tobacco doesn't have this side benefit, so must be banned" --->
Why don't we just write a new Constitutional amendment to effect this policy? Prohibition on tobacco, legalization of marijuana? It would probably help the economic recovery of some of the states currently experiencing decline in their quality of life index. And doesn't marijuana use less precious water than tobacco in our newly global warming-conscious world?
Senator X, "It makes sense if pot smoking in coffee shops is a huge tourism draw." --->
Allow me to add to your observation: Here is a capital idea for how FLORIDA might hold off those who advocate oil drilling just offshore Florida's tourism beaches -- pass an ordinance to allow pot smoking in all Florida's beachside cafes. Imagine the laissez-faire opportunities ...
Just, pleeaaaaasssse, don't offer me one of your vacations in a little razor-wire autism vacation camp for making blog-comments on the VC!
ISTR that a frequent VC commenter resides there. Perhaps he will see fit to enlighten us about the present Dutch government's relative conservatism or socialism.
A "coffee shop," in the Netherlands, is a place where you specifically go to smoke week. Read the Wiki entry.
So I'll have a space cake, the black window strain, and sure, why not have an espresso, too.
Again, a "coffee shop" is not a Starbuck's. It's a place to go eat space cakes and smoke weed. They are great, by the way. (Oh, I forgot: Smoking pot is bad. But drinking beer, eating yourself into obesity, and popping Prozacs are mighty fine choices. Rock on!)
Incidentally, I am a cigar smoker. Go to a cigar shop and light up a cigarette. See how long you last.
Some people (like me) enjoy the smell of cigar smoke. We don't allow cigarettes in the cigar lounge because we think that's a disgusting smell. Similarly, I know ciggie addicts who hate the smell of cigar smoke.
People have difference subjective preferences and associate with others who share those preferences. Go figure.
Who indeed. But among the Fox News groupees, you have to feel superior to someone, and that someone is always going to be everyone in europe because, you know, they are all liberals.
Also, many if not most of the patrons typically smoke their weed (or hashish) mixed with tobacco, which dispels the notion that the pot smokers were behind the tobacco ban.
Isn't it still carcinogenic and a health hazard for people with asthma and other problems? I don't see how the policy is consistent.
Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer
‘ScienceDaily (May 26, 2006) — People who smoke marijuana -- even heavy, long-term marijuana users -- do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd.
‘Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found.
‘The findings were a surprise to the researchers. "We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use -- more than 500-1,000 uses -- would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles.’
Very true, which is why it is useful to have one's preferences imposed on a country as a whole (not implying that Mike&believes this, I just thought this quote was a good point to start with). If the coffee shops thought it was better to not allow tobacco smoking, they could (I presume) not allow it. Smoking a cigarette may not be the main draw, but why should a coffee shop be prohibited from allowing its customers to smoke tobacco in addition to pot if they wanted to?
Great point.
Also note: When I was in the Netherlands, I saw a bunch of really thin people who rode bikes to work and around town.
Those pot heads!
They should be more like us. Nothing evidences a commitment to public health like driving your SUV to the McDonald's drive-thru for a Big Mac.
Your facts are making my eyes burn and causing me anxiety.
Time for a cup of coffee to wake me up. Then some Prozac. Then a high-carbohydrate-and-high-fat meal to help me fight off the Mac Attack. Later, I'll wash my cholesterol-lowering medication down with a few Bud Lites. I'll cap the night off with an Ambien.
Oh how I hate druggies!
You like to stereotype all Americans? Wow. We Americans have a much bigger PR problem than one would presume. And you assumed I was talking about Starbucks when I was suggesting Florida could open up some "coffee shops?" Where did I say that? What makes you think i was not talking about the Dutch version. I don't see Starbucks warding off the off-shore drilling advocates. When what you're doing is not working, something needs to change ... ALA the suggestions Florida could ward off the off-shore oil goo by passing an ordinance for beachside "coffee shops" ALA the Dutch variety. I am not your stereotypical American, Mike&; while some of my classmates were chanting rah-rahs for the basketball team, I was taking Arabic, Russian, Spanish, and French classes, and classes on the Middle East and comparitive governmental political systems. Although, I was just merely a humble business undergrad.
So, yes, I do feel qualified to "pontificate" about "the wisdom of the laws" of some other foreign countries. Sorry to disappoint your perceptions of 'What is an American.'
Neither tobacco smoke nor marijuana smoke is carcinogenic. Cigarette smoke contains procarcinogens that, by interacting with other chemicals from non-tobacco sources, may produce carcinogens. Few tobacco smokers die of cancer. This is why second-hand tobacco smoke is not much of a long-term health risk for most persons. (For those who don't know, the biggest risks from tobacco smoking are earlier onset of heart diseases and direct damage to the lungs: bronchitis and/or emphysema.)
Many persons dislike inhaling any smoke from burning organic materials. In this respect (ignoring smell), marijuana and tobacco are equally bad. For people with respiratory problems such as asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, etc., both types of smoke cause acute problems.
Therefore, if you are looking at public smoking from a public health perspective, both tobacco and marijuana smoking should be equally restricted. However, if you are looking at smoking from a total health care cost perspective, then the Netherlands policy makes some sense since tobacco smoking causes more medical problems and medical costs than marijuana smoking. The government probably hopes that preventing public smoking will decrease total smoking.
We really come from two different worlds. Some of us ride horses, instead of modeling ourselves on your imputed stereotypical characteristics of 'an American.'
But, let me ask you: what exaclty is it you find enjoyable about a cigar?
except in those places run by nannystaters that OUTLAW cigarette smoking.
this is what disgusts me. let the friggin businesses (and consumers ) make the choice. cigarettes, cigars, fat people in spandex, and pot smoke ALL annoy me. but govt. shouldn't be steppin' in and saying to businesses that they can't have ANY of the above at THEIR business.
personally, i benefit greatly from the banning of cigarette smoking in bars, restaurants, etc. but it doesn't make it right, especially from a libertarian perspective. it's the politics of selfishness and "we know better than you."
as for the snarky comments about mcdonald's. i love mcdonalds. i also have a bodyfat level that is well below the average american (or european). it's my frigging choice to eat mcdonalds, and just because some people can't exercise the discipline to do so in moderation and/or exercise, doesn't mean we should ban them either. i fear the cigarette police are going to come after the "fat foods" next.
oh wait. they already DID. see the trans-fat ban in NYC etc.
Could that be because there is less "tar" in marijuana smoke and that it's not "sticking" to your lungs either (and consequently wouldn't cause lung cancer)?
Hey, Dude!
Want some nice fry grease?
It's really good cheet, mon. Try a taste. Roll it around on your tongue. See what I mean?
Only $20 a pint. Straight from Nuevo Oleo.
with apologies to grandmaster flash
Tasty fries, greasetrap highway
Tell all your friends, they can go my way
Eat trans-fat and damage your R.N.A
Eat enough, and death aint so far away
The more you eat, the more adiposity
Trans-fat will make you a swollen monstrosity
It goes into your foods and makes them crispy
but it is worth the ischaemic heart disease?
As a Floridian I think it would be a great idea. Including marijuana in the war on drugs has always been a colossal bad joke. We could reverse our economic bust almost immediately as waves of pot smoking tourists would come here, get high, and spend their money. However if the federales were able to prevent the sovereign nation of Mexico to de-criminalize marijuana what chance does the little state of Florida have?
My thinking is one of the ways we could sell it to the narco-police and their associated power structure is to promise no cut backs in funding. Also we could combine the relaxation of the non-violent drug laws with an increase in the harshness of penalties for violent offenders. I just don't see those laws ever being relaxed unless those that are advantaged by them are ensured no loss of power. Otherwise they will always prevent it, and probably prevent it anyway just because of the danger of change to their power.
What are you talking about? According to a 2004 Surgeon General Report, cancer is the second leading cause of death among smokers. In 2003, 157,200 people died from long cancer. Of those people, 90% of men, and 80% of women, were smokers.
According to this page, one of every eight smokers will die of long cancer, whereas less than 1% of people who have never smoked will develop long cancer. I don't see how you can call that "few".
Few tobacco smokers die of cancer. This is why second-hand tobacco smoke is not much of a long-term health risk for most persons. "
Most people who get shot don't die of gunshot wounds, and in fact, very few people who get shot with small caliber low velocity rounds die when compared to the number of people who are shot. In one recent study, only 12% of people suffering one gunshot wound died. In an earlier study, only 7% of gunshot wound victims died. However, that does not imply that shooting people doesn't kill them.
People who smoke cigarettes are fourteen times more likely to get lung cancer than nonsmokers, with the risk being dose-related. People who smoke fewer cigarettes are less likely to get cancer than people who smoke more.
In contrast, the data for cancer and second hand smoke is weak, certainly for casual exposure. Even more, there is little empirical evidence that the hyperbole by those who say they are horribly affected by homeopathic concentrations of smoke are actually showing a toxicologic reaction. Instead, it is more indicative of a cognitively mediated response — you are seeing a psychosomatic fear response similar to a panic reaction, not toxic effects. (See: Simon Chapman,Evidence, ethics, hubris and the future of second-hand smoke policy. Tobacco Control 2007;16:73-74).
I don't doubt that "cancer is the second leading cause of death among smokers", but that doesn't prove anything. According to the CDC, who ought to know, cancer is also the second-leading cause of death among the population as a whole. I would add that it is almost certainly the second-leading cause of death among non-smokers: the fact that it is far ahead of the third leading cause of death among the general population strongly suggests that it is not just smokers dying of cancer who move it into second place overall.
Bingo! Natural (home made/alkaline/less carcinogenic) vs Forced (mass produced in factories/acidic/highly carcinogenic:
There IS a difference!
This simply isn't true. I suppose you are trying to be cute, exaggerating the distinction between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cigarette smoke and the corresponding carcinogenic diol epoxides to which they are metabolized in vivo.
Nonetheless, even without splitting hypertechnical hairs, smoke contains nitrosamines and other bona fide carcinogens. Some of what's in there may be merely carcinogenogens, but alot of the other stuff only has one "-gen".
If anyone's interested the year in which it was finally proved beyond any reasonable doubt that smoking causes cancer was pretty late - only 1998.
If you are right -- and you might be -- then the "bad news" that today's marijuana is so much stronger in potency than that of the past, is actually "good news": You need to smoke much less of it, perhaps only one hit, to get a good buzz, and hence end up inhaling less hot smoke into your lungs.
Also, latakia smells awesome.
With respect, it proves that your statement that "[f]ew tobacco smokers die of cancer" is false.
But, if you think the CDC is authoritative, they say:
So, according to the CDC, cancer is the leading cause of death attributable to smoking. Now the CDC ought to know, and what they say specifically contradicts your assertion that:
In fact, over a hundred thousand smokers die from cancer caused by smoking every year, second-hand tobacco smoke causes over 30,000 lung cancer deaths annually (dying from cancer seems like a long-run health risk to me), and the leading cause of death from smoking is lung cancer.
2 notes about ME McNeil's link. First along with the article about marijuana being less carcinogenic was a link to an article about how marijuana smoke was considerably more toxic than cigarette smoke, which to some extent equalizes the public health impacts of the two. The other was puzzlement at the standard they used for a moderately heavy marijuana smoker: up to 22,000 joints lifetime which would seem to mean someone smoking 3 joints/day for 20 years would only be a moderately heavy smoker, unless those are pin-joints that's well into the wake and bake range (for 20 years too).
Please try to keep your interlocutors straight. I did not write "Few tobacco smokers die of cancer". That was Dr. T., no relation. All I did was mock your statement that cancer is the second-leading cause of death of smokers, since that is also true of non-smokers, and therefore proves nothing about the dangers of smoking. I don't doubt that you can come up with much better arguments against smoking and Dr. T., as in fact you did in your followup, but please don't aim your arguments at me, since I'm not defending smoking -- of tobacco or marijuana.
So true. Occasionally, the Guardian or Le Monde will have a story about the US, and the most common response in the comment threads is, "As a European, I don't think I am familiar enough with the United States to make an informed comment. Therefore I will refrain from criticism."
Mike&, I know it's too much to ask to read the links before you launch into your rant, but could you try reading the entire first sentence in the original post?
Thanks for helping me feel superior to someone outside of Europe, by the way.
" fat people in spandex"
"Spandex on fat people should be banned in restaurants and bars, where people are trying to eat and where people are trying to convince themselves the person they are with is as good looking as a movie star. I have no problem with wearing spandex at home and even in semi-public areas like the gym, but in places like restaurants it is at least as offensive as cigarette smoke and in bars is far more offensive" ---->
Wow. I will have to stay in the indoor arena when riding in my riding breeches. I might offend someone by trotting around in the riding public. If I could only quit getting the munchies ... Maybe I should try a little beefy growth hormone instead, and then I could acquire the *right* BMI. I still just worry it will cross the autism-blood-brain barriers and who knows what could happen, maybe FrankenHorse or something.
Senator X, I didn't know you were in favor of legalizing marijuana to help out Florida tourism a little. I haven't really given it any thought how to sell the idea to the feds w/o reducing their power; however, it has come to my attention the DEA has not completed its Rehabilitation Act self-evaluation concerning cannibis for medical uses required for the Controlled Substances Act marijuana Schedule. With the input of the disabled. Where is Raitch when you need her?
"abotu" = about
I wouldn't advise the bovine growth hormone, while it does aid in burning fat, the lactation tends to get annoying. Riding breeches usually don't cause a problem (although some do), the cottage cheese test works: if someone with cottage cheese thighs can still be seen to have cottage cheese thighs while wearing the garment in question, it's prohibitable spandex.
No one has ever characterized me as having 'cottage cheese thighs,' so I am safe to wear my riding breeches and trot around?
You should not have mocked her, then. Tobacco-associated cancers are not the second leading cause of death in non-smokers. It may well be true that the woman who dies at the age of 50 of lung cancer may die at the age of 60 of breast cancer, or that the man who dies at 50 of bladder cancer might die at the age of 80 of prostate cancer. That does not imply that lung cancer and bladder cancer are not caused by tobacco, nor that the years lost due to tobacco-caused cancers are unimportant.
Everybody has to die. Everybody doesn't have to die early. Adult male smokers live, on average 13.2 years less than nonsmokers. Adult female smokers live on average 14.5 years less. That's a lot of time to flush down the toilet.
Rather, it is justified based on the assumed costs to innocent bystanders of second hand smoke, and that is precisely where the data is most lacking and questionable. And, of course, the fact that many don't like the smell of second hand smoke. But most of us can easily avoid places where people smoke, should that be a priority (Whit being an exception here).
Let me note that I don't really have a horse in this race - I don't smoke either pot or tobacco, and don't find either all that offensive. I typically adapt within minutes to a room that was previously smoked in (tobacco or pot), no longer noticing the smell. Rather, this is an interesting debate as to whether the Dutch are hypocrites here or not.
Maybe by reading the "Epstein on Boumediene" thread.
Dopers like him act like marijuana is nothing. This story didn't surprise me in the least.
You seem to assume pot smokers are behind the tobacco prohibition. As I pointed out above, that assumption is, at best, questionable.
- The purpose of these smoking bans are not to protect the other patrons, who are free to leave if they don't like the smoke, or sit in the smoke-free areas that many places have. The purpose is to protect the people that work in those bars, restaurants, etc. For some time now, there has been a blanket ban on smoking in people's work space, and the exception for bars and restaurants expires at the end of this month. (They had years of advance warning, and only now they're starting to scream that it's unfair and will chase the customers away.)
- I lived in Ireland when that country became the first in the world to enact such a smoking ban, and actually it simply causes loads of people to gather outside the pub, not all of them smoking. Unlike inside, outside you can actually talk without screaming, with a pint in one hand and, optionally, a smoke in the other.
- Our current Dutch government is the unholy statist union from hell. (Aka, the liberal party, with liberal meaning "keep the government out of my business", i.e. what liberal is supposed to mean and what it used to mean until the Americans ran with it, is in opposition for the first time since the late 80s.) Christian-Democrats and Socialists. The smoking ban, of course, is a socialist thing since it is meant to protect the workers.
- Yes, the Christian-Democrats don't like this whole business of leaving people free to commit whatever sins they like, and are eager to ban marijuana (again). For the time being, that idea stands no chance, but they've been working on a ban of shrooms, which I think did pass. (They had some suitable horror stories of people taking shrooms and ending up dead. Very tragic. Urgent government intervention was clearly warranted.)
- How deadly second-hand smoke really is, I have nothing to say about, except to point out that some second hand smoke is one thing, and working an eight hour shift in a bar full of smoke five days a week is something entirely different.
my point isn't that it isn't offensive. while i appreciate your humour, my point is that it is UP TO THE PRIVATE BUSINESS (or should be, in a non-nannystate country) as to whether they ban spandex, smoking (cigar or cigarette), or whatever.
look, let's assume for the sake of argument that there are significant health risks to LONGTERM (iow 8 hrs a day every day) exposure to second hand smoke.
gr00vy. does that mean the GOVERNMENT should be able to tell private restaurants/bars that they cannot allow smoking? in the former (restaurants), i would say no, and in the latter (bars), i would say hell no. and again, i DETEST cigarette smoke.
the issue is this. does the "right" of a VOLUNTARY employee e.g. a waitress to be free of the risk of second hand smoke in her chosen profession at a given business TRUMP the right of the business to determine whether or not to be smoke free. i would say - absolutely not.
different careers have different risks. i've been both a firefighter and a cop. i accept(ed) the various risks when i entered the careers. waitressing at a restaurant that allows smoking ALSO has risks.
businesses are free to be smoke free. prior to the smoking ban where i live, several bars CHOSE to be smoke free. but we MANDATE smoke free bars, and we eliminate the choice for scores of smokers, for every waitresses we "help", not to mention this is essentially ex-post facto law to harm businesses. many bars, etc. that made huge capital investments based on the prior model (smoky bars), now have to deal with a significantly less profitable environment, cause they are gonna lose a lot of business when smoking bans pass (at LEAST in the short term).
it sucks that waitresses have to be exposed to second hand smoke (assuming they are not smokers themselves). it also sucks that highwway workers are exposed to reckless/negligent drivers, that cops are exposed to dangerous perps, that firefighters are exposed to fire, that fisherman are exposed to the ocean, that steelworkers are exposed to heights and heavy metal objects, that roofers are exposed to heights, that...
The group had sought to get around the state smoking ban that went into effect in January by arguing that the event was essentially a private club meeting.
The hall [was] strictly staffed with volunteers, convention-goers were to pay $15 to join the club, and attendees were to sign a waiver. ...
But St. Charles police, DuPage County health officials and anti-smoking advocates didn't buy it.
"This is the first time we've seen such a blatant attempt . . . to actually undermine the law through legal sophistry," said Mike Grady, the American Cancer Society's Illinois director of public policy. "We're very happy with the outcome."
He's happy because he got to push around people who aren't like him. No one was saved from anything, except for the wonderful feeling of community that was enjoyed in years past, especially when a pipe carver or tobacco blender could see you relishing his work.
Marijuana is actually illegal in the Netherlands. The thing is, they just don't enforce it to the point where it is openly sold and consumed in small quantities. Producing and trafficking marijuana on the other hand is pushable, so coffeeshops actually have to acquire their wares in shady ways. I guess their government just turns the cheek and doesn't wonder where these people selling small quantities got their small quantities from.
Second, the amount of marijuana smoke produced when smoking is considerably less than tobacco smoke. The reason is there will typically be only one 'smoking device' per a group of marijuana smokers with only one person smoking it at a time. Tobacco smokers on the hand will usually each have their own cigarette, cigar, etc, all constantly producing smoke. This means that in a single session, a cigarette smoker will consume as much tobacco by weight to themselves as a group of 3-4 marijuana smokers will consume marijuana. Furthermore, that group of marijuana smokers will smoke only a couple times in a night, while a tobacco smoker will smoke on an almost constant basis. Basically, there is a lot more bad stuff being put in the air by tobacco smokers than marijuana smokers.
whit, with the "nannystate" terminology you like to throw around, one would think you are joined at the hip with Judge Kozinki. I keep running into the "nannystate" terminology on the 'censorware' issue I have been researching concerning Kozinski's 2001 disablement of the Federal Courts Internet filter, as referenced by the Mecham letter posted on HowAppealing the other day.
Which gets me reminiscing about those First Amendment issues: "but we MANDATE smoke free bars, and we eliminate the choice for scores of smokers, for every waitresses we 'help'" ----> don''t you think the waitresses have a First Amednment associational interest of their own ... to associate in a non-smoking workplace with non-smoking co-workers and customers? What about THEIR liberty interests?
And that doesn't even address the Americans With Disabilities Act, should the waitress have, for instance, something like multiple chemical sensitivity, and just really can't work in a smoking environment. Why should someone have to work in an environment where he/she will be poisoned by OTHER PEOPLE's second-hand smoke?
"i accept(ed) the various risks when i entered the careers" ----> does this rationale mean that if I enter the legal profession as a person with autism, I have to accept the risk I will find myself at any point in the vicinity of GARLIC?
"my point isn't that it isn't offensive. while i appreciate your humour, my point is that it is UP TO THE PRIVATE BUSINESS (or should be, in a non-nannystate country) as to whether they ban spandex, smoking (cigar or cigarette), or whatever." --->
So, in your estimation, would it be okay to ban autistics? fat people? ugly people? People who are advicates for the medical use of marijuana even if they themselves do not use it due to obeying the law?
What wrong with that? They are two different substances with different issues.
And limaxray does have a point -- for every one or two tokes a marijuana smoker puffs, the cigarette smoker will finish off an entire cigarette or two. Thus, one produces far more toxic second-hand smoke than the other.
The question this discussion leaves me with is this: why is the same standard of empirical proof not applied to those who assume that working long hours in a bar is measurably harmful to their health? I have not even seen a single case that would at least anecdotally back up this claim, let alone some real scientific data.
I suspect that in only the most extreme cases this is true. How common can it be that there is very little ventilation, where the bar crowd lasts for a full 8 hours and not the standard 10PM-2 (CA) and 10PM-4AM (NY), and where the workers themselves aren't smokers, and where a worker actually devotes their entire career to working in a bar.
I fear we are far too willing to give up our liberty for nebulous and unsubstantiated social gain.
they don't. they can choose a smoke free bar, or if there are no smoke free bars in their area, then not work as a waitress. there is no "right" to work as a waitress in a smoke free bar. the idea is absurd.
oren,
um. no. among other things, studies show that illnesses from cigarette smoking SAVE society money, in total. assuming that second hand smoke causes illness, why should it be any different from primary smoke?
- You're right, of course, pointing out that there's a difference between legalisation and a policy of condonement. (For lack of a better translation.) The latter rests on prosecutorial discretion, instead of an act of parliament. I didn't point out this nuance in my previous comment because, though interesting in itself, the difference isn't very important in practice. A publicly announced policy of condonement, such as this one, which has been in place since 1970 or thereabouts, cannot be repealed on a whim, since that would amount to arbitrary prosecution. So making marijuana "illegal" again only requires a cabined decision, but they would have to give the general public enough advance warning. (And, in a parliamentary democracy, be prepared to explain to parliament why they would want to do such a thing.)
- I'm not sure whether pot smokers these days still share a joint. Maybe in the US, but over here people in coffee shops tend to smoke a joint on their own, i.e. not share.
@other commenters:
- I have little to say about this nannystate argument, except that it is a matter of degree. In the US there are a few federal laws that protect employees, that much I know. Over here most countries tend to have more stringent workplace laws. To say that waitresses have no legal right to work as a waitress and are therefore not entitled to protection is ridiculous. Assuming, arguendo, that second hand smoke is indeed dangerous, would one not want to protect any and all restaurant, bar, etc. employees against that danger? We don't allow people to work with asbestos except with protective suits and all the trimmings, not even if the employee says "I'll do it voluntarily, for the higher pay check", do we?
- Obviously, whether law makers personally smoke or have a problem with others smoking plays into their decision. Then again, isn't it supposed to? They represent society, and as society's values vis-à-vis smoking change, so do parliament's. But one can hardly say that personal preferences are the beginning and the end of it. Obvious jokes aside, most of these people have way too big a stick up their ***** to appreciate prostitution, but a few years ago they nevertheless voted to move prostitution from condonement to full legalisation. I'm sure other examples would come to me if I thought about it a bit longer.
I have located a somewhat longer and more detailed historical gloss of Dutch drug policy by Dr. Eric Fromberg of NIAD (at the time of publication). About a decade ago, and a few years after publication of that article, I had the pleasure of first meeting Dr. Fromberg then discussing those issues with him late into the night, during a visit he made to the USA. He has since retired.
I believe you will find his historical gloss consistent with your comment here.
Also, pot smoke gets you high, whereas cigarette smoke only alleviates the effects of nicotine withdrawal.
If only America could be as enlightened.
correct, oren. but productivity is A metric that doesn't measure cost to society in total. consider the money SAVED by nonpayment of retirement, etc. iow, your quote doesn't address my point. AT ALL.
here's another link...
here's some more quotes...
"Economists have already done a larger accounting, testing assertions that smoking imposes a big economic burden on society. Their answer, usually, is that it doesn't. A widely cited study conducted for the Rand Corporation by Willard Manning, a health economist at the University of Minnesota, found that smokers had more medical expenses than nonsmokers and died about four years earlier; after they paid cigarette taxes, society came out ahead — in dollars, anyway.
"
"In a 1994 study based in part on the Manning data, W. Kip Viscusi, a Duke University economist, found that smokers subsidize nonsmokers even without taxes. He put the medical costs attributable to smoking at 55 cents a pack sold, and added much smaller amounts for sick leave, higher insurance premiums and damage from fires caused by cigarettes. Smokers' early deaths cost the public another 40 cents a pack in forgone taxes on earnings. Later, Mr. Viscusi figured health and insurance costs attributable to secondhand smoke, cautioning that his estimate of 25 cents a pack was drawn from highly uncertain data. At the same time, smokers saved taxpayers nursing-home care (23 cents a pack) and pension and Social Security costs ($1.19). The net gain to society: 5 cents for every pack sold. Smokers also contributed 53 cents a pack in excise taxes, 29 cents of that going to the states. "
"The big savings come from retirement benefits, especially since smoking-related disease usually kicks in as one's working years end. Mr. Viscusi calculates total yearly pension savings nearing $30 billion — most of which is realized not by the states but by private pension plans and the Social Security system. (Since about 30 percent of Medicare dollars go to nursing home care, the states save money there.) And if no one smoked? "Social Security would go bankrupt," he said. "We'd all have to work to age 80."
Oren, these comments are making you more susceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome. Please back away from the keyboard so my health insurance bill will go down.
Wow, this is fun, I can control any one's behavior using this logic.
iow, not only does his premise not support his conclusion, from a liberty angle, but his premise isn't even true in the first place.
other than that, it's a solid argument :)
I guess this is analogous to the way, if stupid people didn't throw their money away on state lotteries, we'd have to raise taxes.
I would only ask that in your (hypothetical) smoking bar you make a good-faith attempt to inform the waitstaff/help of the probable risks involved.
now THAT i agree with. while i am very libertarian in terms of thinking people should be allowed to make choices (and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences thereof), i also think that one area of govt. regulation that is consistent with liberty is in forcing businesses/products to INFORM - food labeling, warning, etc.
i'm all about choice - informed choice.
it's been said lottery is a tax for people who are bad at math...