Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Assuming that marijuana was legalized, should all the different types of smoking bans, i.e, smoking inside in bars or restaurants or cars, or outside in parks or patios, be amended to allow marijuana smoking and not tobacco smoking?
Assuming that marijuana was legalized, should all the different types of smoking bans, i.e, smoking inside in bars or restaurants or cars, or outside in parks or patios, be amended to allow marijuana smoking and not tobacco smoking?
No. Second hand smoke is second hand smoke regardless if one makes you paranoid, giggly and crave Funions.
Assuming that marijuana was legalized, should all the different types of smoking bans, i.e, smoking inside in bars or restaurants or cars, or outside in parks or patios, be amended to allow marijuana smoking and not tobacco smoking?
No. And for the same reason--second hand smoke. Which, in this case, is even more of a reason. Anyone who has ever been in an enclosed area where pot is being smoked knows about getting a contact high.
Assuming that marijuana was legalized, should all the different types of smoking bans, i.e, smoking inside in bars or restaurants or cars, or outside in parks or patios, be amended to allow marijuana smoking and not tobacco smoking?
I personally think that it should be up to the bar owner as to whether he allows smoking or not. Sign: "We allow smoking. Enter at your own risk!"
Second-hand smoking laws shouldn't need to change. But there should be an amendment to allow for cafe's and marijuana-specific establishments where smoking inside would be legal.
It should probably be consistent, ie. "2nd hand smoke is 2nd hand smoke" but anyone who knows the research/science, knows that tobacco smoke is 1000x more dangerous than pot smoke.
It should probably be consistent, ie. "2nd hand smoke is 2nd hand smoke" but anyone who knows the research/science, knows that tobacco smoke is 1000x more dangerous than pot smoke.
both give out the same carbon monoxide levels in second hand smoke
It should probably be consistent, ie. "2nd hand smoke is 2nd hand smoke" but anyone who knows the research/science, knows that tobacco smoke is 1000x more dangerous than pot smoke.
Why is that? I thought all second hand smoke was dangerous. Smoke from fireplaces, camping fires, burning leaves, cooking smoke. Smoke from any vegetable matter.
both give out the same carbon monoxide levels in second hand smoke
It's not just CO, it's the thiocyanate, nicotine and associated byproducts as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
