Wouldn't it be nice if instead of just bars with alcohol, there were establishments for people to consume cannabis while eating, playing board games, and socializing?
If anything, cannabis seems like a much better (and more profitable) drug around which to build a leisurely establishment.
Some establishments yes, but in most places I would not smell alcohol unless someone spilled it all over the floor. It’s anyway much less compared to smoke that will stick to your clothes
People who are going to a place to smoke typically wouldn’t mind that. Take cigar or vape lounges, for instance. Also it’s usually people who don’t smoke weed who act like the smell of weed bothers them.
right but my point is if a group of friends want to go to a bar and some people don't smoke or like the smell of smoke then there is a problem, it's not like they can just opt not to smell smoke
Then don’t go to a weed bar, I guess. Laws are unlikely to allow weed and alcohol in the same place any time soon… though that already happens illegally at concerts and many bars I’ve been to. But people at the bars usually smoke outside. Colorado gov’t acts like all hell would break loose if people smoke and drink at the same time.
That sounds nice in theory, but in reality the result is usually that if the majority of a group smokes, the nonsmokers don't have much of a choice except for looking for new friends. That was a very common complaint when smoking in pubs and restaurants was still legal here.
Well if low THC vapes and flower carts become common enough, we could see it become much more socially acceptable over time.
The problem is how to shift public perception of it as an anti-social behaviour towards a more acceptable vice that doesn't necessarily have to affect others good time
Just because one person doesn't want to go to something doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. You're basically saying one person's opinion/choice outweighs an entire group. If those choices constantly put you at odds with the group it might be best to find a group that aligns with your values more. There's also nothing wrong with being friends with the people that want to go to things you don't like, just tag along when they do things you do like. You also don't have to have one set of friends, you can have multiple groups that like to do different things. I'm not pro banning things for the sake of others that can choose not to participate.
That line of arguing is exactly why it doesn't work. And in general I agree that banning things because someone else doesn't like it is wrong, getting rid of smoking wherever possible is better for everyone, including the smokers.
For what it's worth, pretty much everyone here in Austria agrees that the ban on smoking in indoor establishments was a good thing. It's just so much better to come home from a night out and not reek like smoke so badly that everything you touch will smell for days.
Right but you can consume cannabis in tons of different ways - cookies, cocktails, etc. Restaurants had smoking areas for decades with far worse air filtration systems.
Dry vaporizers (with temperature below 200C, convection-based) don't have smoke so are a lot less offensive with smell, if not odorless particularly with access to fresh air.
Also people smelling of alcohol, particularly if they are drunk or drinking liquor, is definitely a thing. Also barfing. I wouldn't doubt bars having bad smells sometimes.
Yep that's the 21st Century way to party. Smoking tastes almost disgusting after making the switch.
Bars could have bar-top vape systems and you could bring your own plant materials or buy there, but you would probably have to buy a disposable nozzle for the vape systems. Each patron could use a clean disposable tip for their visit to minimize germs.
Depending on the the vaporizer tech, I could see BYOB (and a bit of auto-cleaning or just provided qtips etc) being a thing. Meaning bag, bowl, or...
Also personally I have my own mini-"pipe" that I carved, the balloon bag slots into it and it has a carb hole for air-mixing (also it can fit the direct draw/whip mouthpiece into it too, diff orientation). So it's a personal mouthpiece.
I don't care about cannabis consumption in public but anything that produces smoke or vapor should be treated the same way as cigarettes. Second hand smoke exposure needs to be minimized.
I am also not sure they would be more profitable. Alcohol is dirt cheap to produce and bars charge insane amounts for it. A $10 bottle in the supermarket frequently goes for hundreds of dollars. A cannabis lounge might be more profitable right now because there is very little supply but I doubt you can have anywhere near the amount of bars or clubs.
For vapor, note that many dangers that you have heard of are related to ecigs (liquid-based vape pens). The ones that are flavored+have nicotine and added adulterants (glycol/glycerol at least), and that use a conductive heating coil that may expose the user to heavy metals especially if they get too hot (though probably more of an issue for heavy daily use). Plus with the higher water content, breathing in the steam cloud may be a lung infection risk.
For a dry (herb) vaporizer set at a temperature under 200C (and convection-based), you don't have those problems (2nd paragraph). I am not saying anyone should be near random people with this, but in a dedicated location it should be fine (especially with fresh/filtered air or an open space). You're breathing significantly worse stuff being exposed to the ambient car exhaust to/from said location (also: gasoline vapor at gas stations, or even something as unassuming as candles because those are burning).
No it wouldn't. I'm sick and tired of the childish argument that if we accept alcohol then we have to accept or introduce other substance abuses because some find it more appealing.
Why shouldn't we accept it? Its already poven to be better for you than alcohol, many people enjoy it, and a lot less deaths per year will be caused by wee than alcohol. Should people who don't want to drink not be allowed to have a place they can hang out similar to a bar?
Here we go again. People who don't want to drink alcohol can hang anywhere and still don't drink acohol. The unwillingness to drink alcohol or that "many people like it" are not actual arguments to introduce and use other health damaging substances rerdless of their nature and effects.
I just want constancy. Weed is less dangerous than alcohol. Ban both, legalize both, legalize weed but not alcohol, or keep things the way they are and drop the premise that it has anything to do with health and safety.
That "less dangerous" is so subjective and unfounded that I'm not going to address.
On the other hand do you think it's a good idea to think in extremes? Alcohol is rooted in our culture since literally thousands of years to get it out is almost impossible now but we can struggle for moderation. Weed as we find it on the market didn't even exist 100 years ago. So maybe it's a good idea to introduce it get it common as alcohol so in 50 years we will have the problems with alcohol and with weed on top. Smart.
Then we can go further to other drugs because we cant leave them outside. We have to be consistent and some people really like it.
Complains about how dangerous introducing something is. Then says it is subjective and won't address it.
It's like the Santa Claus problem. Telling kids that Santa Claus is real and watching, then went they get older telling them it was all a lie. Surprise Pikachu face when they all turn atheist. Tell kids that weed is bad for their health. When they get older, watch as half the country legalise medical marajana. Surprise Pikachu when the kids all start trying meth "cause adults lied about one drug, what about the others?"
Consistency isn't just to make certain people feel better. Consistency prevents people from going down dangerous paths.
Well, actually reading a post and just glancing over it are two different things and I can asure you that only the first can help you understand what other person is saying.
Introducing a drug (for which we don't have yet the full table of clinical affections but the data that we have clearly shows it has negative long term effects) to unrestricted consumption and social acceptable norms is not ok especially in the context of how bad alcohol consumption is and how much damage is doing to consumers. But you actually don't care about alcohol consumption, it's just an argument you got flying around from the internet forums and subscribes ro whataboutism.
What I won't address is the comparison "less dangerous than" which is vague and unfounded. I can tell you why but I doubt that you care.
Telling people that weed it's bad for their health is the truth, especially to kids and that won't change when they grow older. But maybe you don't care because you're young and consuming and nothing bad happened to you.
Medical consumption and for leisure in a bar/coffee house consumption are 2 very different things. A medical drug is not something that is all good for you, it's something that consumed gives you more benefits than problems in the context of a health affection. Something recreational is something you consume just for fun. So the element of necessity (the health affection) is missing thus the trade-off between beneficial and detrimental is non existing. You actually have to be consistent in your arguments.
How meta. My only argument is that policy should be consistent, less people stop trusting the authority that is issuing the policy; and you complain that my argument is inconsistent.
Well if that is what you want then your inconsistent with what you ask for.
You see for the last years the consumption of alcohol, tobbaco, sugar, fat, etc. have been publicly "exposed" and criticised in campaigns, programs to discourage consumption have been publicly funded, restrictions regarding comercials, comercialisation and consumption have been gradually put in place and so on.
So actually the legalisation of weed consumption in various degrees is inconsistent with all the public health policies in place right now which tend to be more and more restrictive with unhealthy substances consumption. Just saying.
And how is my argument that we should regulate public consumption of addictive substances consistently contradictory to what you are arguing?
All I know is that I lost a good friend to alcohol induced liver failure, while I have a 3 year old cousin that takes marajana to prevent seizures. Both have the ability to be abused, both have medical applications, but only one is illegal.
I visited a couple of places exactly like this in Madrid and Barcelona. It was really cool, although a bit clandestine due to cannabis regulation. If I recall correctly, it wasn't illegal to use, it just wasn't legal to advertise it, or to do it publicly. The people running the places were really nice, bunch of different selections, and they had board games and good music.
Yea hmmm. I guess I have a really shitty opinion of my local cops. They know everyone, and I'd imagine the clientele at a weed bar would be the kind that's more favorable to fk with, for them. They do post up at MAT clinics for sure, and bust people cause they can get a free dui charge, plus jail time, in most instances, cause everyone's got records. I'd like to think by the time I see a weed bar we'd have some more changes as well. Drunk driving is bad.
They've got this in Amsterdam but I would say it's less accessible than bars/alcohol generally due to how polluted the air gets (despite the best efforts of filtration)
I'm tired of these people that are so scared of cannabis and it's effects, like they are straight out of reefer madness. You know what's significantly more harmful and in practically everything you consume these days? Sugar. Caffeine is a close second.
Source for the caffeine claim? As far as I know caffeine is inversely correlated with all-cause mortality. The mechanism is uncertain but has been theorized to be mild appetite suppression, digestion, or coffee outweighing the caffeine itself.
The comment might be conflating their given stat with legal drugs that are addictive. Caffeine is more addictive, not more harmful. It still kinda goes to the same point of a rejection of cannabis use on the basis of harm/addiction being generally hypocritical of society though
Add comment